Iran lawmakers prepare to close Hormuz Strait

reply to post by Xcathdra


I know only half of it is theirs, so they can still close that half, cant they?

Which would mean ships can only get IN, not out.

Originally posted by Submarines

Originally posted by Romekje
reply to post by Submarines

 

They have all the right in the world to close their territorial waters.

To bad ignorance isn't painful. Look at a map before you make your statements.

Iran's territorial waters does NOT extend across the straits., therefore they do NOT have the right.:

reply to post by Romekje




Territorial water extends out anywhere from 3 to 12 nm. The straights are divided into 3 sections - the territorial waters of Iran and the UAE and the third is a 6 mile wide transit passage which is international waterways covered by UNCLOS.

Originally posted by Romekje
reply to post by Submarines

 

They have all the right in the world to close their territorial waters.

Exactly!

Israel gets away with illegal naval blockades on Gaza, so why can't Iran shut down their own territorial waters ?

The double standards held by some of ATS members baffles me.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


Because Iran nor the UAE controls the 6 mile wide transit passage.

They are not territorial waters of either nation.

reply to post by Romekje


That's what I don't understand even if they close "their half" whats to stop shipping from using the other half coming and going?
I know it may be a tight squeeze but surely with navigation aids there will be little trouble in controlling traffic both ways in a way that would not present danger to any ships, we are not talking the "Costa Concordia" here!

Except Iran has threatened to do this how many times before?

However, it never keeps Iran from spouting how they would do it if they ever were to do anything, which to date, has proven to be nothing.

For Iran to actually follow through with it's threats would mean that they all lied about the fact that they only use such measures for "defensive" purposes only and would be totally against their religion (so they say). To close the Strait would be a provocative measure and not a defensive one.

"Iranian Mines, Missiles Can Easily Shut Hormuz"

english.farsnews.com...

The strait has been patrolled and 'closed' practically for months now with american carriers and battle ships riddled all over the strait , The US has increased its military presence in the region, doubling the
number of minesweepers while bringing in stealth warplanes.

Iran is closing its waters? ..they seem like normal defence tactics to me im sure if Russia or china was 'patrolling' Us waters with its navys the Us would do more than close its shipping.......

reply to post by Deetermined



it could be argued it would be a defensive gesture as the sanctions could be considered an offensive one

reply to post by Xcathdra


Do you even realise how bottlenecked the strait would become with only a 6 mile passage left?

And if it really comes down to war, i wouldn't be surprised if they would put up a full blockade.

These sanctions are cripling their economy and are simply an act of war. And why? Just because Iran wants technology that pretty much the entire world already has.

Originally posted by Romekje
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Do you even realise how bottlenecked the strait would become with only a 6 mile passage left?

And if it really comes down to war, i wouldn't be surprised if they would put up a full blockade.

These sanctions are cripling their economy and are simply an act of war. And why? Just because Iran wants technology that pretty much the entire world already has.

It has always been a 6 mile wide transit passage. That is the established sea lane for entrance and exit of the Persian Gulf.

If Iran wants to shut down their sea territory they can do it all day long as it will not affect the Straights. They are international waters by treaty.

Secondly sanctions are not an act of war. An Embargo would be under UN laws / treaties. If we use that argument then one could say Iran has declared war on Israel by refusing to trade / but their products and vice versa.

A nation can choose with whom they will do business with and won't do business with. Iran has made it very clear the sanctions are not affecting them and apparently have bbuyers lined up left and right.

Or are they lying when they make those claims?

reply to post by DukeEligos


The U.S. military always increases it's presence in the area when there's a threat against closing the Strait. They're presence is to help make sure that everyone gets in and out safely with no incident from Iran.

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
reply to post by Deetermined

 

it could be argued it would be a defensive gesture as the sanctions could be considered an offensive one

Sanctions are not missiles and mines. Iran had a choice to make and they made their own bed, they can't consider that offensive when their own decisions are what warranted the sanctions in the first place.

Originally posted by DukeEligos
The strait has been patrolled and 'closed' practically for months now with american carriers and battle ships riddled all over the strait , The US has increased its military presence in the region, doubling the
number of minesweepers while bringing in stealth warplanes.

Iran is closing its waters? ..they seem like normal defence tactics to me im sure if Russia or china was 'patrolling' Us waters with its navys the Us would do more than close its shipping.......

Care to support the claim about being shutdown by American vessels? Our forces are based out of Quatar, not the straights, and like all nations they can exercise freedom of naviugation in international waters. There is no blockage of naval or air traffic through the straights by US forces.

Iran must ask the syrians for biological weapons(camelpox) to be deployed in american and western cities.That would make sure that if West decided to invade and mass genocide in their lands,then Mutually assured destruction will take place.

reply to post by Xcathdra


A nation can NOT choose who to do business with if their are active sanctions against a certain country.

Any member state of NATO is obliged to follow the sanctions.

Any non-member state of NATO will declare war to NATO if they don't follow the sanctions.

You know how sanctions work right?

Originally posted by Romekje
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

A nation can NOT choose who to do business with if their are active sanctions against a certain country.

Sure they can.. Trade between nations is by treaty / consent. Either nation can decide who they will do business with. Just like Iran not buying products from the US but Europe instead.

Originally posted by Romekje
Any member state of NATO is obliged to follow the sanctions.

Actually no they are not. There are a lot of nations who are not a part of NATO who opted not to buy Iranian oil.

Originally posted by Romekje
Any non-member state of NATO will declare war to NATO if they don't follow the sanctions.

This is not supported by any facts or rational logic. There are nations who opted not to follow the US on this topic and they are still doing just fine and are not in a state of war with any nation.

Originally posted by Romekje
You know how sanctions work right?

I do.. do you?

Please provide sources for your claims about NATO and nations doing business with one another please.

Please provide sources to support your claim on trade between nations.

reply to post by Romekje


The situation in Gulf of Hormuz looks like the movie Avatar to me.Iran reminds me of the N'avi and USA reminds me of the corporation hellbent on exterminating the N'avis. Seriously,Thank God that Russia is there still to keep the peace or else Rockefeller would have murdered billions by now.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Under legislation signed by President Barack Obama In December, the United States will take action against countries that continue buying large volumes of Iranian oil through Iran's Central Bank by cutting off financial institutions engaged in those transactions from the U.S. banking system.

Today marks an important milestone in the implementation of the NDAA and U.S. sanctions toward Iran. Following the President’s determinations on March 30 and June 11 on the availability of non-Iranian supplies of oil, as of today, any foreign financial institution based in a country that has not received an NDAA exception is subject to U.S. sanctions if it knowingly conducts a significant transaction with the Central Bank of Iran for the sale or purchase of petroleum or petroleum products to or from Iran.

Source

reply to post by Romekje


Once again, sanctions are not an act of war.

Obama has come out and said that cyber warfare is an act of war too, but you don't see anyone actually dropping bombs and missiles over it, do you? And yet a cyber war was been going on for at least the last three years.

reply to post by Deetermined


So war HAS to include bombs and guns?

Wake up lol.