Posted on 04/09/2026 9:16:35 AM PDT by DIRTYSECRET
As the ceasefire began, Tehran was already reshaping the terms of the agreement to its advantage rather than adhering to its spirit. On Wednesday, Tehran only allowed 12 cargo tankers to pass through the strait.
This sharply contrasts with pre-conflict levels, when more than 100 vessels could transit the strategic waterway daily.
With Vice President JD Vance in Islamabad on Friday for direct negotiations with Iran
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
My neighbor gets bottled water shipments.
Next week I’m going to stand out in the road and demand a toll when the truck drives by my house.
At gunpoint.
This is perfectly acceptable behavior.
it probably was, but no plan survives 1st contact with the enemy
Neither has the U.S., for that matter.
One of my companies owns a commercial property.
The owner of the building next door has a new tenant that put a garbage dumpster behind it that can only be accessed across our property.
We put a stop to that sh!t the first time a garbage truck tried to drive through our parking lot to get to the dumpster.
I was told I'd be contacted by a lawyer representing the owner of the building or the tenant. I'm still waiting -- two months later. If they want an easement across our property, they're going to pay us for it.
No, but the US has enforced freedom of navigation and ‘law of the sea’ since the days of the Barbary pirates. Like our modern constitutional law stems from British common law, which stems from Biblical law, the UNCLOS stems from earlier accepted common law that civilized peoples know is a requisite for civilized society.
See the figure in Post #33. I’m not sure you’re right about that.
Do you or any other experts no what percentage of theses two countries(SA & UAE)ships through these two pipelines?
Does Qatar employ any methods other than LNG to get their methane/natural gas out of the Gulf?
I also believe that there have been proposed pipelines from Saudi Arabia all the way to the Med on the Israeli coast.
Plus, pipelines through Turkey all the way to Greece.
1. The U.S. enforced freedom of navigation and "law of the sea" for American naval and commercial vessels.
2. The "law of the sea" principles outlined in the common law origins you reference almost certainly only apply to "open seas" that do not lie within the jurisdiction of any nation.
3. Any access to disputed or overlapping territorial waters should be negotiated between and with the nations whose territorial waters are involved.
Countries shut off access to their territories in times of open warfare, don't they?
It's not Iran's problem -- or yours (or mine), either -- that there are a bunch of tiny countries in the Persian Gulf that are only accessible by sea through a disputed channel. Maybe they aren't even viable countries after all.
Transit passage through international straits was historically governed by the customary law regime of non-suspendable innocent passage, formalized in the 1958 Geneva Convention. This followed a traditional, more restrictive, approach until the formal adoption of “transit passage” (allowing submarines submerged and overflight) by the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
Key historical aspects include:
Corfu Channel Case (1949): The International Court of Justice (ICJ) established that warships had the right to pass through straits used for international navigation without prior authorization, provided the passage was innocent.
1958 Geneva Convention: Art. 16(4) stated that passage through straits used for international navigation could not be suspended, distinguishing it from general territorial sea passage.
Pre-1982 Status: Before UNCLOS III, as nations extended their territorial seas to 12 nautical miles, many high-seas corridors through straits turned into territorial waters, necessitating the new “transit passage” regime to prevent total coastal state control.
Point remains, no nation can restrict passage through the strait. But I guess you could say we are currently involved in “serious negotiations” with Iran on this point.
That was me. LOL.
I think that at least politically, it is a major problem for Trump and for Republicans.
Then they should have thought about that before they embarked on this idiocy. If the report in the NYT article posted here yesterday is accurate, this is precisely why J.D. Vance was opposed to the military action in the first place.
It's also a problem in terms of how the rest of the world, allies and otherwise, would perceive Trump's judgment and willingness to follow through on threats.
Trump getting humiliated as a result of his own hubris and his own unwise decisions might be the best thing that could happen as far as this goes.
Is there any precedent under any form of maritime law, other international law, Biblical law, Newton’s Law, etc. for a nation to allow “open access” through its territorial waters while it is engaged in warfare?
Child:
1) You say they, not we. Says something about you.
2) Your calling out Trump's stopping rogue regimes bent on getting nuclear weapons to use in their continuing 47 year campaign to fund terrorists, spread jihad, and kill westerners as "idiocy" also says something about you.
So who lays claim to the strait?
If you are responsible for wear and tear on the parking lot, it is your insurance covers parking lot use them you hold claim to it.
My driveway is on an easement owned by my neighbors. They are responsible for road maintenance. 2 years they attempted to shut down my access to my driveway and the courts immediately said no. An easement is an easement.
So as long as Iran remains at war, then its ok to block the SOH. Got it. Therefore we are not in a cease fire. Let the bombing continue.
Oh in other words, if the courts decide an easement is going to happen they’ll just declare it. You won’t be paid for it.
That’s an easement. It’s a rule, not a lease.
“Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran”
It should be considered open territory imho, the navigation lanes should not be controlled by any single country as they are not "in" any country.
I think permitting Iran to develop a nuclear bomb and long-range ballistic missiles with which to deliver them, especially while still under the control of an expansionist Islamic and anti-American regime - would have been the real idiocy. And that was inevitable had we not acted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.