US - Iran Peace agreement Part 3

[TopPocketFind]

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/conflict-in-the-middle-east/5535141-us-iran-peace-agreement-part-2https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/conflict-in-the-middle-east/5535141-us-iran-peace-agreement-part-2

I think you are also misunderstanding or misinterpreting the MoU.

Whatever Iran think the MoU said, it lacks the authority to override international maritime law and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Does it never occur to you the sabotage is on the US side

Iran has a good deal
US has a crap deal

ps see edited post re International waters

Not relevant
see previous post

Countries have sovereignty over their own waters

I have given you countless examples of the MoU from the AP. The MoU states that Iran will control the passage of ships in the SoH for the 60 days. It’s not me who doesn’t understand this. It’s you and Donald.

Wow who said that?

Again: From the Guardian, in the MoU: shipping through Hormuz would resume under Iranian “arrangements”.

If Iran has such a good deal, ask yourself why they chose to potentially sabotage it by hitting 3 commercial ships. Doesn't make sense does it.

Because the USA were breaking the terms of the MoU. For heaven’s sake!

It makes perfect sence
The ships weren’t following the agreed passage directives
Its part of the MOU

Multiple posters keep reminding you

The word "arrangements" doesn't imply that the IRGC were free to attack 3 commercial ships in the SoH just because they picked the lane closer to Oman rather than the lane closer to Iran.

And even if Iran thought the US were breaking the terms of the MoU, that still doesn't explain why they would risk the peace talks collapsing if they thought they had such a good deal.

Last post on the subject today as we're going round in circles.

Yes. And here is a map of the waters in the area that I screenshotted a month or so ago. No international waters in the area. The closest is out in the Arabian sea.

The ships don’t get to pick
Don’t you remember the very detailed operations process for transit

If was posted on the previous thread

Don’t you recall All transponders must remain on
Iran stated clearly the repercussions if ignored
and let’s not forget Trump said the US sneaked through other ships
So if he’s not lying they’ve admitted they have form

I think with all the evidence and explanations of
the MOU
and that International waters don’t exist in the Strait
and countries have sovereignty over their own waters
irrespective of your inaccurate claim they do
I’m not entirely surprised it’s your last post.

Some of us are indeed repeating ourselves and going round in pointless circles

Have the rights of innocent passage and the exception for belligerent passage re UNCLOS been discussed on previous threads?

Any mediocre lawyer would be able to argue the following.

The US correctly argues that transit passage has become accepted as a firm right of all states in international custom, also binding on non-parties.
but crucially, the coastal state may suspend the right of passage if it judges that demands of its national security so require. (my bold)

The US-Israeli attack on Iran clearly brought an international armed conflict into being. This turns the Strait of Hormuz into a ‘belligerent strait.’
While the conflict lasts, Iran would be entitled to attack US or Israeli warships under the law of maritime warfare. This might include convoys of merchant ships conducted by US warships
(Professor Marc Weller, Director of the International Law Programme at Chatham House).

I'm wondering why three ships would think it a good idea to switch off their transponders to transit the Omani side. Surely it would have been simpler to just use the Iranian route?

.al Jazeera

The US military said the attackswere aimed at Iran’s “ability to threaten the freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz”.

In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump called the US attacks “retribution for yesterday’s bombing of ships by Iran. If it happens again, it will get much worse!”

In bold
definitive proof the US military and Trump don’t understand the MOU and who controls the Strait

can a mumsnetter here get a message to them
Jade?
Redtag?
anyone ?

Well exactly
😉

Yes. It has been discussed in previous threads how right of innocent passage can change.

For reference, here is UNCLOS art 25. We have mostly talked about art 26, and what it says about charges.

Article 25
Rights of protection of the coastal State

1. The coastal State may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent.

2. In the case of ships proceeding to internal waters or a call at a port facility outside internal waters, the coastal State also has the right to take the necessary steps to prevent any breach of the conditions to which admission of those ships to internal waters or such a call is subject.

3. The coastal State may, without discrimination in form or in fact among foreign ships, suspend temporarily in specified areas of its territorial sea the innocent passage of foreign ships if such suspension is essential for the protection of its security, including weapons exercises. Such suspension shall take effect only after having been duly published

I have also discussed the different types of sea, and how they are defined. Now, for sure the strait is shared. So Iran does not have jurisdiction on the Oman side. But there is the MOU as we have discussed above. And there is a war on.

But some folk seem to have ignored all that chat we have had here.

UNCLOS+ANNEXES+RES.+AGREEMENT

.Israel ready to attack Iran ‘with even greater force’: Katz
Israel’s Defence Minister Israel Katz said his country was prepared to attack Iran if needed, “with even greater force”.

“The army is ready and on alert for a resumption of fighting, in order to regain air superiority and strike Iran again, to eliminate threats, including a third time if necessary,” Katz said at a military ceremony at Hatzerim Air Base.

“We proved that the long arm of the Israeli Air Force can reach anywhere, from Yemen to Iran. Yet, we must also acknowledge that the campaign is not over”

No surprises there then

From AlJazeera. Doesn’t bear thinking about.

Al-Saif warned the continued blockade of the Strait of Hormuz would have devastating consequences. “There could be up to 45 million people at risk of hunger because of those disruptions in international trade, according to the World Food Programme,” said al-Saif.

• .Iranian officials and state media have reported multiple explosions in the country’s south, including near the Bushehr nuclear facility.
• A US official has told Al Jazeera that the country’s military was not behind the latest strikes on Iran. No one else has so far claimed responsibility, and Iran has not so far blamed any specific country.

US and U.K. news reporting the same

So who is behind the strikes if not the US ?

@trumpredcard

I just noticed you said this in your post above that I replied to. Quote :

"I'm wondering why three ships would think it a good idea to switch off their transponders to transit the Omani side. Surely it would have been simpler to just use the Iranian route?"

Has it been confirmed that the 3 ships had their AIS off ? I thought it was just one of the 3 confirmed to have been "in the dark" so far ?

As I have posted before, this lack of information is making it really difficult to tell what is going on. And usually, the innocent side, here the US, would release all relevant info to prove that they are the innocent side. But that is not happening. I would expect something like " Three allied ships were attacked at positions ( lat and long), while transiting the strait under strict adherence to Art 5 of the MOU". But that is not happening.

Re UNCLOS, I am just an armchair follower, and this is what I follow.

Who was the real mastermind behind the S.China Sea arbitral tribunal, and how was the arbitration procedure subverted? - Global Times

Its the 10 year anniversary of the UNCLOS arbitration award on the SCS. and the PRC are doing a big exercise in rubbishing it. I have read the award and rebuttals, UNCLOS, the history etc. Pretty much anything I can get. So ask me how baselines are laid out or islands are defined and I can do that. Freedom of navigation I am not so hot on.

And after years of following the SCS issue, what I recognize is that US press releases on the SoH are now remarkably similar to those the PRC issue on the SCS. That is claims with not much info.

The link above is pure propaganda. And if one reads a lot of propaganda, I find it becomes easy to spot. What is not said in propaganda is often more important than what is said.

Interesting article/ opinion in the Mirror.

"Donald Trump's petrol-bomb diplomacy adds fuel to Middle East blaze by Chris Hughes"

"Trump cannot find a path to withdrawing, with the paralysis on the Strait of Hormuz lifted and in which he avoids huge humiliation and Iranian claims of victory. It is possible that this is because one does not exist - beyond major escalation and upping the ante, trying to force Tehran to back down. Whilst it seems unlikely Tehran will do that, it is also the direction of travel Trump’s administration appears to be choosing."

What I find interesting in this article is it is returning to the ammo numbers. When I say returning, I should say reminding, because it has been discussed since day 1.

"But there is a problem. The US has piled through roughly half of its Patriot and THAAD defence stocks, a third of its Tomahawk cruise missiles and half of its precision strike ballistic munitions. Incredibly Iran has managed to soak up and deplete the US supplies of missiles and bombs and stocks could take between three to five years to replenish. Surging energy prices have hugely benefited Russia which before the Iran war was becoming desperate for cash to pay for its full-scale invasion of Ukraine."

The way I read the whole issue, is that if Iran steps down and gives up it's enriched uranium, what does it gain ? Nothing. It will still be sanctioned to the hilt. It won't have it funds released. It will be where it has been for decades.

There is no carrot. No real incentive. And as the article says -

"And this may mark either a subtle change in US military policy, homing in on civilian infrastructure such as trade routes, or that it is simply running out of available targets. All of this is becoming increasingly dangerous for the west and NATO as its senior partner the US is depleting its weapons stocks and air defence systems."

"running out of available targets." . That might be key here. I do not see how the US can bomb it's way out, unless it starts carpet bombing and lays waste to everything.

They will need to restart the MOU again. And this time stick to it. The US will need to stick to it I mean.

'Donald Trump's Iran war escalation is just like a losing gambler constantly borrowing more money' - The Mirror

The bombing of non-military targets can only escalate to carpet bombing if the US doesn't want to put troops on the ground. More and more news outs are reaching the same conclusion that Trump doesn't have the cards in this.

The worry though, is that GCC / Nato countries would get fed up of the continuing negative effect on the world economy and attempt the escorting vessels out strategy. This would weaken Iran's use of the Strait as a bargaining chip and they would do their utmost to block this happening.

Military escalation will yield either a pyrrhic victory for the US or a lose/lose for both parties, so I agree that a better and clearer MOU needs to be signed asap. Hopefully before the mid-terms.

Why is it a worry that GCC / Nato countries would get fed up of the continuing negative effect on the world economy and attempt the escorting vessels out strategy?

Isn't it a good thing if the IRGC's use of the strait as a bargaining chip is weakened?

It really helps in understanding the issues, if one first attempts to answer those questions oneself. After comes the analysis, followed by the opinion.
Working the other way round tends to lead to entrenched but untenable positions.

eta
I may have worked in the Education sector, and like to encourage intellectual rigour 🤔

Pompous reply. I’m not one of your ex students.

I can’t see from an international perspective that it’s anything but a good thing if the IRGC’s use of the strait as a bargaining chip is weakened. They are attempting to hold the world to ransom. Though 800 commercial ships have transitioned the SoH since May with US escorts.

Maybe you see it from a different perspective but without you explaining your thought process it’s impossible to say.