| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
But now I've thought about it, you may be right. If Iran is playing a genuine long game and it's all about domination of the Gulf and/or the wider Muslim world, they have demonstrated to the Arab Gulf states that the post-war American umbrella is not something they fear. 'Get in line or else, and that includes the Omanis.'
But this falls at the first hurdle. They Gulf States may be prepared to pay the Hormuz Tax, they may be prepared to pay the tax on behalf of other countries exporting their oil. But what are the Iranians going to do when those countries say to them, "We don't need your oil now the Strait is open. Until you behave properly over the Strait (lest other countries start doing it with their straits) you can shove your oil up your arse."
There isn't any country I know of that's in favour of an Iranian Hormuz (even those who are in favour of Iran) and the IRGC can't do anything to ships that aren't there. So it still looks to me to be the outwash of an internal power struggle.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| "This is the fifth military engagement between the Iranians and the American since the ceasefire began." Al-Jazeera's man in Tehran |
One appreciates you are subject to reporting restrictions, old chap, but this isn't strictly true, is it? It is the fifth time the Iranians have fired on civilian shipping, the fifth time the Americans have bombed Iranian assets in reprisal and the fifth time the Iranians have bombed Gulf States (plus Jordan, for some reason, on this last occasion) in reprisal for the reprisal.
At no time has their been a military engagement between Iran and America. It is as well to be exact on these matters.
I did, however, appreciate your owlish aside that it is the first time Oman has been at the receiving end. Though I was disappointed you did not speculate on how this might affect the talks between Iran and Oman, in Oman, that have just started re the future control of the Strait. As a negotiating ploy I thought it was positively Trumpian.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Wiki wrote: | | Marc Weller is Professor of International Law and International Constitutional Studies at Cambridge University, England, and a fellow of Hughes Hall, Cambridge working in its Department of Politics and International Studies (POLIS). He was the Director of the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law. He has been an adviser in many international peace negotiations. |
Sounds like a geezer worth listening to re the current Hormuz situation, right?
| Both the Iranian and the American blockades of the Hormuz Strait are illegal according to international law. Professor Marc Weller on Al-Jazeera. |
I hate to contradict you, Prof, but you're talking out of your arse. Only the Iranians are blockading the Strait of Hormuz. Feel free to cast your baleful professorial eye on the legality of that as much as you want.
The Americans are not blockading the Strait. They are fierce upholders of the principle of free passage for all shipping through international waterways. Any ship -- including any Iranian ship -- is, as far as they are concerned, free to come and go through the Strait.
What they are doing is subjecting Iran to trade sanctions. Feel free to cast your baleful professorial eye on the legality of those as much as you want. But don't, for pity's sake, conflate the two. It's more than your jobsworth.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Another lively debate has broken out about what happens next. More than one commentator has pointed out, correctly, that no power on earth can prevent Iran sending the odd missile towards the odd ship trying to pass the Strait of Hormuz, thereby tacitly bringing all commercial traffic through the Strait to a halt.
What no commentator has pointed out -- so I will have to -- is that a new situation has been created. America has presented Iran with the following choice:
| Every time you send the odd missile towards the odd ship wishing to pass the Strait, you will get fifty, a hundred, two hundred of your 'military sites' bombed to oblivion. |
So while no power on earth can stop the Iranians doing it, the Iranians themselves may decide it's not worth the candle. Eventually. Time is, on this occasion, on America's side.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
More silly obfuscation from people who should know better. When Trump talks about charging a 20% toll to ships passing through the Strait, it is not a toll for 'going through the Strait' -- that's what the Iranians are proposing, it's forbidden under international law and is something Secretary Rubio vowed America would never do.
Trump's toll is for providing security for ships wishing to pass the Strait, a very different thing. It's an unfortunate term but then Trump is not known for literal accuracy. Or the seriousness of his nightly electronic brainwaves. It would certainly be perfectly legal so long as it wasn't compulsory. (Not that I'm putting that entirely beyond the orange nutter's feverish mind.)
At 20% ad valorem it is ridiculous for tankers carrying bulk oil in the ordinary way -- one per cent would pay for a decent-sized flotilla of escorts on an ongoing basis -- but 20% would be cheap at the price for getting stranded tankers out. It would pay for an emergency US navy crew to take them through. Something I would personally recommend if I was a Filipino deckhand.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
More silly obfuscation from people who should know better. When Trump talks about charging a 20% toll to ships passing through the Strait, it is not a toll for 'going through the Strait' -- that's what the Iranians are proposing, it's forbidden under international law and is something Secretary Rubio vowed America would never do.
|
Wileys take is that Trump, has no way of collecting these tolls, fees whatever.
As this is not a realistic attempt to build a new post conflict architecture, its more likley an attempt to warn off and stop all ships from using the Iranian side of the strait. The US, EU UK and Gulf States now realise (Iran is making it clear they wont cede control) that to regain control of the strait (which Iran currently has) they will need to mass their special forces for coastal landings and attacks on Iranian coastal cities.
This would explain the new bombings, that are sealing up coastal sites, and the additional forces' including European forces, being moved to the theatre.
Its probably going to a updated version of Operation Earnest Will, my guess is that Ukraine will be providing the counter drone know how.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Earnest_Will
If this is sucessful then the Strait can return to being an International waterway. If it fails then it wont.
Last card.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Wileys take is that Trump, has no way of collecting these tolls, fees whatever. |
That was my first reaction too. I don't think even he's got the gumption to sink a Chinese tanker that's not stopping for anyone.
| As this is not a realistic attempt to build a new post conflict architecture, its more likley an attempt to warn off and stop all ships from using the Iranian side of the strait. |
I sort of disagree about this if you really are talking 'post conflict'. Let's say Iran and Oman have done a deal, let's say the other Gulf states have acquiesced for the sake of quiet life. Let 'em pay tolls if they want. It's no skin off anyone else's nose. We're steaming through singing Lonnie Donnegan songs.
| The US, EU UK and Gulf States now realise (Iran is making it clear they wont cede control) that to regain control of the strait (which Iran currently has) they will need to mass their special forces for coastal landings and attacks on Iranian coastal cities. |
This wouldn't be post conflict. It would be post the world we've known and loved for a coupla hundred years.
| This would explain the new bombings, that are sealing up coastal sites, and the additional forces' including European forces, being moved to the theatre. |
I definitely don't agree with this. Iran cannot be 'sealed off'. There'll always be scope for a man, a pick-up truck and his drone. And, talking of additional European forces, they would definitely be needed for mine clearance since it would only take a few surreptitious mines on the Omani side to stop the traffic.
| Its probably going to a updated version of Operation Earnest Will, my guess is that Ukraine will be providing the counter drone know how. |
It will be an updated version of the Charge of Light Brigade in that case. You can stop ninety-nine drones but the hundredth will smack into a tanker's superstructure and that will be enough to halt the traffic.
| If this is sucessful then the Strait can return to being an International waterway. If it fails then it wont. Last card. |
To me, it's a simple case of either Iran buckles now or Iran buckles later. The stakes are too high for any other outcome. And if Iran buckles early, it has still come out of the war as the overall winner. All this Hormuz stuff has been strictly 'operational'.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I'm having great difficulty following the logic of Trump's current Iranian policy. He was faced, one has to concede, with a difficult problem when Iran decided--somewhat out of the blue--to adopt a Houthi-ite position in the Ormuz Strait.
Everyone (including, I suspect, the Iranians) had supposed the MoU had provided for a step back on both sides, America to be rewarded with peace in Trump's time, the Iranians with a spectacular shower of goodies.
It was clearly understood that nothing had been ruled in and nothing had been ruled out when it came to nukes, tolls, missiles, surrogates and regime-change. The assumption being that the status quo ante would be the default unless further agreements could be reached.
Something happened on the Iranian side when it became clear that not only was permanent control of the Strait unrealistic but temporary control during the negotiation period was being denied to them as well. For whatever reason someone decided they could safely try it on to give the Americans -- and the Gulf Arabs -- a little nudge.
Trump could have accepted this, put in a routine tit-for-tat, and allow the MoU to wind its way to a sort of handleable no-win/no lose denouement. But he went ape shit instead. That's perfectly proper too. But only if he stops at some stage to present Iran with a tacit ultimatum: 'Ya want more or you want to return to where we were when the MoU started?'
So far he hasn't done that. Now it's Iran at a loss to know what to do. They can't cry uncle but their country is disappearing around them. All they can do is escalate and hope that has some effect. The art of the deal is for there to be a deal.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
