Iran says it has full control of Gulf, U.S. Navy does not belong there

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: DBCowboy

Doesn't change the fact that Nebraska isn't a gulf state...

Just sayin'.

Fake news.

Plenty of people gulf in Nebraska.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Ah, I see.

There are times I worry about you... Though you are hardly unique, in that respect.

On to topic...

Iran is like that little yappin' dog across the street, that barks and growls convinced that the very world trembles in terror.

Well let me set you all straight with maritime law. The first 30 miles of sea from a countries coast is their territorial waters and no other country should be there except with permission of that country. You like that.
Now to get to the Persian Gulf everybody has to pass through the Straits of Hormuz which happens to be only 20 odd miles wide. There is an ongoing dispute who owns the Straits, Oman or Iran. So NO, American ships have no god given rights to sail this. It is not international waters.

a reply to: TheJesuit

it is understandable that Iran is making the statement it is.
the U.S. is an aggressive nation towards Iran. they don't want any fully armed military ships near their borders.

can you imagine the outcry if Iran had a few military ships off the coast of New York in international waters?

still okay?

a reply to: subfab

Yes. Because international waters...

a reply to: crayzeed

Law of the Sea Convention actually covers that.

Right of Passage. Anyone, be it Iran, or Oman, who tries to control passage or even close it, is in direct violation of it.

Law of the Sea Convention, as regards Straits of Hormuz.

originally posted by: crayzeed
Well let me set you all straight with maritime law. The first 30 miles of sea from a countries coast is their territorial waters and no other country should be there except with permission of that country. You like that.
Now to get to the Persian Gulf everybody has to pass through the Straits of Hormuz which happens to be only 20 odd miles wide. There is an ongoing dispute who owns the Straits, Oman or Iran. So NO, American ships have no god given rights to sail this. It is not international waters.

I'll help you out then. Under UNCLOS (of which Iran is still a signatory), all nations have transit passage rights through the Straits and freedom of navigation. Those rights include unimpeded passage by ships or aircraft including territorial waters. Sooo....

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: TheJesuit

Iran is in control of the Gulf of Mexico???


I bet Florida, Texas, Nebraska and the rest of the Gulf states aren't very happy about this.

By that logic Arkansas is holding it down as a reserve hub for TX, LA and MS! Nice one on the Nebraska lol.

originally posted by: crayzeed
Well let me set you all straight with maritime law. The first 30 miles of sea from a countries coast is their territorial waters and no other country should be there except with permission of that country.

Thanks for setting all of us straight.

When was it changed from 12 nautical miles to 30 miles?

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: EternalSolace

The McCain is named after all 3 McCains. McCains grand father, his father and the senator. All John S. McCains.

The Navy saved itself some money there.

Maybe we can get a garbage scow named as the SS Drumpf.

Probably more the Navy didn't want to name one solely after the person who torched one of their Carriers.

McCain had nothing to do with the fire. That non-sense was generated by die-hard conspiracy theorists who had an axe to grind with his politics.

themikerothschild.com...

a reply to: seagull

Quoted directly from your link;

In the case of U.S. and Iranian rights and duties in the Strait of Hormuz, however, the rules are much less certain because neither country is party to the omnibus treaty. The two states are among the most notorious holdouts,...

Neither the US or Iran have signed the treaty and don't recognise its validity thus destabilising the region.

Looks a bit like pot and kettle to me.

a reply to: Freeborn

UNCLOS Section III, Articles 37-49, Transit Passage of International Straits

In straits referred to in article 37, all ships and aircraft enjoy the right of transit passage, which shall not be impeded; except that, if the strait is formed by an island of a State bordering the strait and its mainland, transit passage shall not apply if there exists seaward of the island a route through the high seas or through an exclusive economic zone of similar convenience with respect to navigational and hydrographical characteristics.

Iran is a signatory of UNCLOS and has been since 10 DEC 1982.

originally posted by: crayzeed
Well let me set you all straight with maritime law. The first 30 miles of sea from a countries coast is their territorial waters and no other country should be there except with permission of that country. You like that.
Now to get to the Persian Gulf everybody has to pass through the Straits of Hormuz which happens to be only 20 odd miles wide. There is an ongoing dispute who owns the Straits, Oman or Iran. So NO, American ships have no god given rights to sail this. It is not international waters.

Not 30 miles. In the case of both Iran and Oman it is 12 nautical miles (13.8 miles).

In April 1959 Iran altered the legal status of the strait by expanding its territorial sea to 12-nautical-mile (22 km) and declaring that it would recognize only transit by innocent passage through the newly expanded area. In July 1972, Oman expanded its territorial sea to 12 km by decree.

Wiki Strait of Hormuz

a reply to: RadioRobert

Sorry, can't see any list of signatories in the link you provided.

According to the link supplied by Seagull neither Iran or the US have signed up to the treaty.

Wikipedia;
en.wikipedia.org...

Iran signed the convention in 1992 but has not ratified it.
The USA signed the agreement in 1994 but it too hasn't ratified it.

And it seems there is no chance of the US Senate ratifying the treaty;

On 16 July 2012, the U.S. Senate had 34 Republican Senators who indicated their intention to vote against ratification of the Treaty if it came to a vote. Since at least 2/3 of the 100 member Senate (at least 67 Senators) are required to ratify a treaty, consideration of the treaty was deferred again.

To everyone who says Iran is a joke, needs to watch this.

a reply to: Freeborn

You said:

Neither the US or Iran have signed the treaty and don't recognise its validity thus destabilising the region. 

Both parties have signed UNCLOS. Neither party has ratified the treaty.


A nation who has ratified a treaty has legally placed itself under the jurisdiction of the treaty members or international-bodies those parties agreed to. A signatory has not placed itself under legal jurisdiction, but has notified an intention of not being at cross-purposes to the intent of the treaty in good faith despite not being under external jurisdiction.

According to Article 18 of the Vienna Convention a non-ratified signatory is obligated to good-faith efforts to act in accordance of the treaty even as a non-ratified party until making clear it's intention to not become a party of said treaty.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Smoke in mirrors.

Neither country has fully signed up to the treaty for one simple reason - it doesn't serve their respective purposes.

The result is continued tension and instability in the region.

Whose agenda that serves is anyone's guess.

a reply to: Grimmley

With Trump as Commander, the US will never lose another battle. No need to worry about Iran. Best military mind ever.

a reply to: Freeborn

Courts call those sorts of thing points of law, not "smoke in mirrors"(sic).

There is a big difference between "hasn't signed/doesn't recognize" and " has not ratified " at a very practical level. It's misleading to continue to say neither party recognizes UNCLOS. Both parties signed it and recognize it. Neither party has agreed to place itself under external jurisdiction regarding it.

There are only 15 countries who are not signatories. Nine of them are land-locked.

a reply to: Freeborn

It is considered a "Staight"

... which falls also under customary marine laws and the Geneva Convention of 1958.

No, they can not prevent innocent passage from point 'a' to 'b' through the Straight.

If they could, they already would have...

Maritime laws are not on Iran's side should they attempt to close, inhibit traffic etc.

Mg