3 ms·

Despite its best efforts, Iran won't be able to toll the Strait of Hormuz

5 points by thisislife2 3mo ago

dtagames 3mo ago
This article makes no sense. First, it claims that the Strait is in Omani water, then says it's both Iran's and Oman's. (Oman has a tiny bit of coastline in the area; Iran is enormous.) But most absurd is the idea that Iran could not enforce tolls simply because there is no narrow toll gate. Did the author not watch the present conflict? Iran doesn't need a narrow entryway to tell who is in the Strait, nor do they need a complicated setup to simply shoot at ships from their very long and high coastline. If insurers believe the ships they cover will be targets, those ships won't be transiting. It's quite simple.
t-3 3mo ago
IMO, Iran controlling traffic and imposing fees in the strait was originally only in the MOU to give them something to back down on in negotiations. The Strait is Iran's nuclear option - it can't be used without prudence and thought to the fallout, because Iran can't afford to risk losing the moral high ground when they finally have the upper hand. The US and Israel want to keep the not-a-ceasefire "going" until Iran responds forcefully enough that they can sell it to a naive and ignorant American public as a casus belli. Iran seems to be waiting for a TACO in the face of international pressure, but I'm not optimistic at all that anyone will be willing to stop Israel, and the Iran government would lose all credibility if they backed down, so more war is likely.
uberman 3mo ago
The author asserts there is no legal way to force a toll as: "Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Strait of Hormuz is an international strait where all ships enjoy a right of transit passage that coastal states cannot suspend." Except neither Iran nor the USA has ratified the Law of the Sea, which makes this weaker than the author presents. If the US wants to rely on "customary law binds non-ratifiers" to hold Iran to transit passage, that same logic applies to the US's own non-ratification. You can't invoke UNCLOS as binding custom on Iran while treating US non-ratification as irrelevant. The author asserts there is no practical way to force a toll as: "The scale of the waterway makes it far more difficult to physically stop, inspect and control vessels that refuse to pay a toll. Imposing a toll is one thing; enforcing it against unwilling ships is another entirely." Except they don't. The Iranians don't need to inspect every ship. In fact, spot-checking is plenty, since they just need to threaten to destroy ships. International shipping insurers will force compliance on Iran's behalf as underwriters price the risk and shipowners route around it voluntarily. I'm not a fan of the situation and certainly don't condone Iranian support for terror organizations, but let's not pretend they lack a legal and enforceable way to disrupt shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. In fact, they've established/proposed a route through the Strait between the Qeshm and Larak islands that gives them even greater control over traffic.
- dlubarov 3mo ago
  The usual view of the international community is that everyone is bound by customary international law. This would remain the case even if the US or others violated it; the hypocrisy of other states wouldn't release any state from its obligations. One can object to this notion of customary international law, but if we're going to say that laws of the sea don't matter here, then we must also give up the legal notion that the strait is Iran's (and Oman's) territorial waters. There's no consistent legal framework under which the strait is Iran's territorial waters, but not an international waterway. There's the practical reality that Iran can extort ships anyway, even with no legal pretense. But then it's essentially just piracy, and anyone with a few boats or mines can do that, unless they're stopped by force.
  - thisislife2 3mo ago
    > This would remain the case even if the US or others violated it; Yeah, but laws are useless if it can't be enforced right? Trump claimed the US has first right's on Venezuela's oil. Apart from Venezuela, which other country has challenged that and promised to help them fight the Americans?
    - dlubarov 3mo ago
      Right. Is your view that nothing can be done about the extortion? I think there are lots of ways other states could make it risky for ships to pay Iran; the US was at least attempting that before the MoU.
      - thisislife2 3mo ago
        > Is your view that nothing can be done about the extortion? Not really - see my other comments. I do however feel Iran would be justified in imposing a toll on countries that are hostile to it. Whether Iran can successfully do so is a different debate. In international law, often "might is right" approach gets away with a lot of things. If Iran finds the right political and military pressure, it could be partially successful.
  - 3mo ago

5 points by thisislife2 3mo ago

This article makes no sense. First, it claims that the Strait is in Omani water, then says it's both Iran's and Oman's. (Oman has a tiny bit of coastline in the area; Iran is enormous.) But most absurd is the idea that Iran could not enforce tolls simply because there is no narrow toll gate. Did the author not watch the present conflict? Iran doesn't need a narrow entryway to tell who is in the Strait, nor do they need a complicated setup to simply shoot at ships from their very long and high coastline. If insurers believe the ships they cover will be targets, those ships won't be transiting. It's quite simple.

t-3 3mo ago

IMO, Iran controlling traffic and imposing fees in the strait was originally only in the MOU to give them something to back down on in negotiations. The Strait is Iran's nuclear option - it can't be used without prudence and thought to the fallout, because Iran can't afford to risk losing the moral high ground when they finally have the upper hand. The US and Israel want to keep the not-a-ceasefire "going" until Iran responds forcefully enough that they can sell it to a naive and ignorant American public as a casus belli. Iran seems to be waiting for a TACO in the face of international pressure, but I'm not optimistic at all that anyone will be willing to stop Israel, and the Iran government would lose all credibility if they backed down, so more war is likely.

uberman 3mo ago

The author asserts there is no legal way to force a toll as: "Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Strait of Hormuz is an international strait where all ships enjoy a right of transit passage that coastal states cannot suspend." Except neither Iran nor the USA has ratified the Law of the Sea, which makes this weaker than the author presents. If the US wants to rely on "customary law binds non-ratifiers" to hold Iran to transit passage, that same logic applies to the US's own non-ratification. You can't invoke UNCLOS as binding custom on Iran while treating US non-ratification as irrelevant. The author asserts there is no practical way to force a toll as: "The scale of the waterway makes it far more difficult to physically stop, inspect and control vessels that refuse to pay a toll. Imposing a toll is one thing; enforcing it against unwilling ships is another entirely." Except they don't. The Iranians don't need to inspect every ship. In fact, spot-checking is plenty, since they just need to threaten to destroy ships. International shipping insurers will force compliance on Iran's behalf as underwriters price the risk and shipowners route around it voluntarily. I'm not a fan of the situation and certainly don't condone Iranian support for terror organizations, but let's not pretend they lack a legal and enforceable way to disrupt shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. In fact, they've established/proposed a route through the Strait between the Qeshm and Larak islands that gives them even greater control over traffic.

dlubarov 3mo ago
The usual view of the international community is that everyone is bound by customary international law. This would remain the case even if the US or others violated it; the hypocrisy of other states wouldn't release any state from its obligations. One can object to this notion of customary international law, but if we're going to say that laws of the sea don't matter here, then we must also give up the legal notion that the strait is Iran's (and Oman's) territorial waters. There's no consistent legal framework under which the strait is Iran's territorial waters, but not an international waterway. There's the practical reality that Iran can extort ships anyway, even with no legal pretense. But then it's essentially just piracy, and anyone with a few boats or mines can do that, unless they're stopped by force.
- thisislife2 3mo ago
  > This would remain the case even if the US or others violated it; Yeah, but laws are useless if it can't be enforced right? Trump claimed the US has first right's on Venezuela's oil. Apart from Venezuela, which other country has challenged that and promised to help them fight the Americans?
  - dlubarov 3mo ago
    Right. Is your view that nothing can be done about the extortion? I think there are lots of ways other states could make it risky for ships to pay Iran; the US was at least attempting that before the MoU.
    - thisislife2 3mo ago
      > Is your view that nothing can be done about the extortion? Not really - see my other comments. I do however feel Iran would be justified in imposing a toll on countries that are hostile to it. Whether Iran can successfully do so is a different debate. In international law, often "might is right" approach gets away with a lot of things. If Iran finds the right political and military pressure, it could be partially successful.
- 3mo ago