Our Undeclared Wars

[old salt]

This too should make afan happy :

https://news.usni.org/2019/06/18/selva- ... more-67273

Although the United States has taken on an international responsibility of maintaining freedom of navigation in the world’s sea lanes, “that doesn’t mean it’s a U.S.-only problem” to counter threats to the movement of oil through the Persian Gulf, the nation’s second highest military officer said.

“I think there is a [U.S.] military role in defending the freedom of navigation. The question is, to what extent is the international community behind that,” Air Force Gen. Paul Selva, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Tuesday to a group of reporters.

“If we take this on as a U.S.-only responsibility, the nations that benefit from that movement of oil through the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf are bearing little or no responsibility for the economic benefit that they gain from the movement of that oil.”

“The circumstances are very different” from the 1980s when during the Iran-Iraq war the U.S. Navy escorted foreign-owned tankers through the Gulf in Operation Ernest Will, and had a number of armed clashes with Iranian forces.

“We got a substantial amount of our oil, during that period in our history, from the Persian Gulf,” he said. “We are now in a position where the bulk of that oil goes to five countries in Asia. And none of those countries have shown any real predilection to stop the Iranians from what they are doing.”

The five nations Selva referred to include China, Japan, South Korea and India, all of which have strong navies.

“So the circumstances are different and the notion that we would project that method of defending the flow of oil into 2019 is probably ill-advised,” Selva said. “I’m not suggesting that we wouldn’t have a role and a significant role to play. But I’m suggesting that this is a bigger problem than just the free flow of oil… It’s a country taking unilateral action against multiple nations, against multiple flags and putting civilian lives at risk in international waters. We, as the international community, shouldn’t tolerate that.”

Selva was adamant that the evidence is strong that Iranian units conducted the attacks on four anchored tankers just outside the Persian Gulf in May and the two attacks of tankers sailing through the Gulf of Oman last week. “The evidence points to Iran,” he said, citing the military sophistication required to attach the small mines to the hulls of ships underway at night, and then to remove one that failed to detonate.

“Iran is lashing out. They’re not lashing out against the United States. They’re lashing out against the international community. They haven’t touched a U.S. asset… and we have to be cautious that we respond only as appropriate.” But Selva modified his earlier rejection of unitary U.S. action, noting that U.S. officials “have been very clear in our messaging [to Iran] that if they engage U.S, forces, or engage U.S. interest in the region, we will respond, whether they do it directly or indirectly.”

[a fan]

Woot!

[old salt]

Both Oman and Iran claim control each out to 12.miles. If Iran decides to close it they can and will.

Then does that apply to all other straits around the world ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_passage

Transit passage is a concept of the Law of the Sea, which allows a vessel or aircraft the freedom of navigation or overflight solely for the purpose of continuous and expeditious transit of a strait between one part of the high seas or exclusive economic zone and another. The requirement of continuous and expeditious transit does not preclude passage through the strait for the purpose of entering, leaving or returning from a state bordering the strait, subject to the conditions of entry to that state.

This navigation rule is codified in Part III of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Although not all countries have ratified the convention, most countries, including the US, accept the customary navigation rules as codified in the Convention. This navigation rule took on more importance with UNCLOS III as that convention confirmed the widening of territorial waters from three to twelve nautical miles, causing more straits not to have a navigation passage between the territorial waters of the coastal nations.

Transit passage exists throughout the entire strait, not just the area overlapped by the territorial waters of the coastal nations. The ships and aircraft of all nations, including warships, auxiliaries, and military aircraft, enjoy the right of unimpeded transit passage in such straits and their approaches. Submarines are free to transit international straits submerged since that is their normal mode of operation. The legal regime of transit passage exists in the most important straits for the international trade exchange and security (Strait of Gibraltar, Dover Strait, Strait of Hormuz, Bab-el-Mandeb, Strait of Malacca).

Transit passage rights do not extend to any state's internal waters within a strait.

[OCanada]

What is your point?

The globe knows they have the capability to close the straits whenever they want. I don’t think arguing transit passage rights is a winning approach given the USA violates treaties often. Kind of a matter of selection bias

John Bolton led us into Iraq and seems to be trying to do do the same kind of thing now. He has always wanted a war with Iran. The administration has backed away. Next crisis du jour.

[CU88]

Iran has Territorial Rights to those waters, imagine the uproar if Iran had warships within 20 miles of USA!

So what ? That does not matter. Right of Transit Passage / Innocent Passage applies.

https://viewfromll2.com/2012/01/07/is-t ... ional-law/

...as the Strait of Hormuz does not belong to Iran alone, and Iran’s sovereign claims over the Strait are limited by Oman’s own claims to its territorial seas, any action taken by Iran to close the entirety of the Strait will necessarily be an act of force prohibited by the UN Charter, and unquestionably a violation of international law.

If the US were threatening Transit/Innocent Passage within 20 miles of US, we should expect foreign warships.

Oh bother, really?
From your link:

"But ignoring the reality of the situation for a moment, and pretending as if international law actually possessed the power to effect state’s actions in the Gulf, ..."

Are you telling us all that you now want to rely on the UN for guidance to US Policy, again from your link:

"United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS")" Something that the USA has never supported.

Ask your hero o d what he thinks of UNCLOS, and get back to us.

Also, your hero o d said this today, on the matter, "Trump characterizes alleged attacks by Iran on tankers as ‘very minor’". Nothing Burger, of course...

You have weaponized stupidity. You're just trolling & wasting band width.
Right of Transit Passage pertains in Territorial Waters.
Established International Law upholds this everywhere.
UNCLOS & standing International Law agree on this.
https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/16 ... ck-passage

*
True, but you are the kettle calling the pot black.

Answer me these two questions:

1. Do you believe that the USA must follow UN "Laws"?
2. When did the US ratify UNCLOS?

Shocker, crickets from o s...

Pardon me. I missed this amidst all the other chaff.
You already have my answer. Read the link I posted.*
The US is in compliance with these provisions of UNCLOS because they're were already part of established Intl Law long before the UN existed.
The links in my previous posts lay out why the US has not ratified it.

* On the other side of that argument is the United States, which, despite its somewhat contentious and complicated relationship with UNCLOS, has long held that the bulk of UNCLOS’s provisions are merely a codification of customary international law. This includes UNCLOS’s provisions regarding transit passage, as U.S. authorities have repeatedly asserted these norms to be a component of CIL:

…the United States…particularly rejects the assertions that the…right of transit passage through straits used for international navigation, as articulated in the [LOS] Convention, are contractual rights and not codification of existing customs or established usage. The regimes of…transit passage, as reflected in the Convention, are clearly based on customary practice of long standing and reflects the balance of rights and interests among all States, regardless of whether they have signed or ratified the Convention… (Diplomatic Note of August 17, 1987, to the Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria (intermediary for Iran)).

And,

…the regime [of transit passage] applies not only in or over the waters overlapped by territorial seas but also throughout the strait and in its approaches, including areas of the territorial sea that are overlapped. The Strait of Hormuz provides a case in point: although the area of overlap of the territorial seas of Iran and Oman is relatively small, the regime of transit passage applies throughout the strait as well as in its approaches including areas of the Omani and Iranian territorial seas not overlapped by the other. (Navy JAG, telegram 061630Z June 1998).

Looks like we agree to disagree, as I find it "two-faced" to point to UNCLOS in defense of our "rights" to deny Iran Territorial Water Rights, when (from your link) "The United States has not signed UNCLOS".

Pretty weak claim to state that it rehashes "customary international law".

[CU88]

What is your point?

The globe knows they have the capability to close the straits whenever they want. I don’t think arguing transit passage rights is a winning approach given the USA violates treaties often. Kind of a matter of selection bias

John Bolton led us into Iraq and seems to be trying to do do the same kind of thing now. He has always wanted a war with Iran. The administration has backed away. Next crisis du jour.

I agree, o d and the r's should focus on another easy "win" to show how tough they are, like the ouster of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

Oh wait,...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... 81c5ef1059

[Brooklyn]

Trump's forces fly a drone over Iran's airspace and claims to be ever so innocent about it. Yup folks, another war is on the horizon - anybody here all set to sign up on the dotted line and to pit their lives at risk so that the military industrial complex can profit from your blood?

[Typical Lax Dad]

Trump's forces fly a drone over Iran's airspace and claims to be ever so innocent about it. Yup folks, another war is on the horizon - anybody here all set to sign up on the dotted line and to pit their lives at risk so that the military industrial complex can profit from your blood?

Don't forget "put their lives at risk, so Trump can score political points heading into an election".... dude is a disgrace.

[a fan]

So as I told you when Trump dropped out of the deal, old salt.....here we are, on the brink of war. Iran popped an American drone.

The only obvious outcome. This is by design. Thirteen Days all over again: Hawks intentionally put America on a path that brings us to a point where we have to say "See, we have no choice in the matter".

Pick a fight. Get the fight we're looking for. Rinse. Repeat.

Trump gets to look tough. And right on cue, millions of Republican voters with small hands who are overcompensating, get to feel tough as we hit yet another country.

Here's another chance for you to try and tell me that this is better than the deal Obama struck, old salt.

-their nuke program is back
-they're still running their ballistic program
-they're still supporting terrorism
-and now, the US and Iran aren't talking at all
-and we're at the brink of open war

Go ahead. Explain how this is "better". Use small words for dumb ol' "a fan", who just doesn't get brilliant foreign policy when he sees it.

[jhu72]

So as I told you when Trump dropped out of the deal, old salt.....here we are, on the brink of war. Iran popped an American drone.

The only obvious outcome. This is by design. Thirteen Days all over again: Hawks intentionally put America on a path that brings us to a point where we have to say "See, we have no choice in the matter".

Pick a fight. Get the fight we're looking for. Rinse. Repeat.

Trump gets to look tough. And right on cue, millions of Republican voters with small hands who are overcompensating, get to feel tough as we hit yet another country.

Here's another chance for you to try and tell me that this is better than the deal Obama struck, old salt.

-their nuke program is back
-they're still running their ballistic program
-they're still supporting terrorism
-and now, the US and Iran aren't talking at all
-and we're at the brink of open war

Go ahead. Explain how this is "better". Use small words for dumb ol' "a fan", who just doesn't get brilliant foreign policy when he sees it.

You would think this would be obvious and certainly easy to understand, but the usual suspects will bend themselves out of shape to explain how this is really better. It's a genius move.

[jhu72]

Trump's forces fly a drone over Iran's airspace and claims to be ever so innocent about it. Yup folks, another war is on the horizon - anybody here all set to sign up on the dotted line and to pit their lives at risk so that the military industrial complex can profit from your blood?

Don't forget "put their lives at risk, so Trump can score political points heading into an election".... dude is a disgrace.

I am not convinced OD is really responsible for this particular move. Bolton and Pompeo, either, both are capable of this if given free reign. Could also be Iranian hard liners. What is for certain is Trump's violating the Nuclear Agreement has set the events in action. He is responsible for setting this in motion.

[a fan]

I am not convinced OD is really responsible for this particular move. Bolton and Pompeo, either, both are capable of this if given free reign.

And who appointed Pompeo and Bolton?

And who put us on this path by pulling out of the nuke deal? Buck stops here.

Sen. Graham said moments ago: "if Iran is itching for a fight, that's what they'll get".

Morons. Utter morons.

How is it a guy like me, with zero military and foreign policy training-----could see this coming the very day Trump pulled out of the deal? Nope, I'm not smart. This is grade school level thinking. Anyone could see what would happen.

And here we are. F-ing idiots.

[jhu72]

Preaching to the choir.

We will hit the IRG most likely and ratchet it up. Iran's hard liners are winning the internal battle inside Iran.

PS - Now Trump is claiming it wasn't done with Iranian government direction - somebody went rogue. Bending over backwards to give the Iranian government an out. Talking heads predicted he would go this route hours before he did it.

[a fan]

Good thing he has an R by his name, and FoxNation viewers will give Trump a pass for being "soft".

I thought it was funny that Trump had to explain to his fans.....repeatedly.....that an unmanned drone doesn't have a pilot in it. I'll give him this much: that man knows his audience.

That said, I applaud anything that keeps us out of war.

[old salt]

Let's see what evidence each side presents (radar tapes of drone's flight path) to verify or disprove Iran's claim that the drone violated Iranian airspace.
According to CNN, the drone was outside Iranian airspace when shot down,

The US will contend the drone was conducting ISR, outside Iranian airspace, to detect & warn innocent shipping of the approach of IRGC high speed boats.

This may provoke a US military response, but it's not a certainty.

The US can make the case we're just protecting the ability of US & other ships to transit the strait, IAW the Law of the Sea.

[old salt]

My sense of this, & it's just a gut feel -- we won't respond unless Iran (& proxies) attack a US ship, manned aircraft, or our installations & personnel in the region.

I'm not sure Trump will act to prevent the IRGC from closing the Strait or threatening transiting shipping, threatening the oil supplies of other countries.

Trump may be happy to stand by, portray Iran as the outlaw & force other countries to enforce the Law of the Sea & preserve the right of Transit Passage.

This can set global precedent for freedom of navigation in sea lanes around the world. So far, Intl Law is on our side.

[foreverlax]

My sense of this, & it's just a gut feel -- we won't respond unless Iran (& proxies) attack a US ship, manned aircraft, or our installations & personnel in the region.

I'm not sure Trump will act to prevent the IRGC from closing the Strait or threatening transiting shipping, threatening the oil supplies of other countries.

Trump may be happy to stand by, portray Iran as the outlaw & force other countries to enforce the Law of the Sea & preserve the right of Transit Passage.

This can set global precedent for freedom of navigation in sea lanes around the world. So far, Intl Law is on our side.

Donald J. Trump
‏
Verified account

@realDonaldTrump
3h3 hours ago

Iran made a very big mistake!

Does that sound like someone who is going to let one of his toys get blown up...by sitting it out.

[jhu72]

Doesn't really matter which air space it went down in. The IRG has already gone on TV claiming intent and a great victory, putting pressure on the government. Publically I think it is highly unlikely that the IRG and government will show a difference - they will stand together. The US is likely to face a government selling the same message as the IRG. Ie, they won't acknowledge Trump's "rouge" interpretation even if true. So the US looks weak if they don't strike back. If they do strike back the IRG wins. Checkmate.

The only way out is for the US to claim they made a mistake and it did pass over Iranian territory accidently.

[old salt]

We'll just operate smaller, cheaper drones within range of Iranian SAMs.
That's why we just deployed a drone squadron to the region.

Gotta make Iran the bad guys in the eyes of the world (oil users).
We're not there yet.

[Typical Lax Dad]

We'll just operate smaller, cheaper drones within range of Iranian SAMs.
That's why we just deployed a drone squadron to the region.

Gotta make Iran the bad guys in the eyes of the world (oil users).
We're not there yet.

An actual war with Iran beats a Cold War with Russia any day of the week.