What's new

Iranian Vessels Harass U.S. Destroyer, Forces It To Change Course

What????:o: U.S forces in Persian gulf Will be destroyed by Iran's IRGC and the rest of Iran?o_O:hitwall:
Iran's IRGC and the whole of Iran couldn't even defeat common Saddam's Iraq for 8years of fighting even though Iraq is your neighbour just bordering you and you think you can end far more powerful world powers like U.S forces and fleet in the Persian gulf??
:hitwall:
You do know that it's the same U.S/U.K led offensive who wiped out Saddam's forces you couldn't defeat for 8years in a 3 weeks right?:tsk:

It seems you have problems with your head? I am talking about conflict in the Persian gulf today and this kid is talking about a war which Iran was involved in the 80's.

First of all, Iraq invaded Iran in hope to capture Iranian lands, however after 8 years they failed, matter of fact by the end of the war Iran was in their lands, this somehow means Iran did not win the war? Iran clearly won that war because not an inch of its land was taken from it. This war happened after a bloody revolution and Iran was in shambles, also why don't you talk about how your kind supplied Saddam with chemical weapons and all the other supports you gave them whilst Iran could not even import barbed wire.

As for this notion US defeated Iraq in 3 weeks blah blah. US sanctioned the crap out of Iraq and the Iraqi army was putting down their guns and running away, furthermore, didn't your troops get their behind handed to them by the Iranian proxies in Iraq? You did not defeat "Iraq", you defeated Saddam's army, most of which did not even fight. To compare the Iran-Iraq situation to that of Iraqi invasion in 2003 and to go even further and somehow link that to a potential conflict in the Persian gulf today, shows what a kid I am dealing with here. Go watch your cartoon and don't talk about things you have little info about.
 
Last edited:
It seems you have problems with your head? I am talking about conflict in the Persian gulf today and this kid is talking about a war which Iran was involved in the 80's.

First of all, Iraq invaded Iran in hope to capture Iranian lands, however after 8 years they failed, matter of fact by the end of the war Iran was in their lands, this somehow means Iran did not win the war? Iran clearly won that war because not an inch of its land was taken from it. This war happened after a bloody revolution and Iran was in shambles, also why don't you talk about how your kind supplied Saddam with chemical weapons and all the other supports you gave them whilst Iran could not even import barbed wire.

As for this notion US defeated Iraq in 3 weeks blah blah. US sanctioned the crap out of Iraq and the Iraqi army was putting down their guns and running away, furthermore, didn't your troops get their behind handed to them by the Iranian proxies in Iraq? You did not defeat "Iraq", you defeated Saddam's army, most of which did not even fight. To compare the Iran-Iraq situation to that of Iraqi invasion in 2003 and to go even further and somehow link that to a potential conflict in the Persian gulf today, shows what a kid I am dealing with here. Go watch your cartoon and don't talk about things you have little info about.

You are the one who is a kid for insinuating you can end the U.S military in the Persian gulf. Loool. Anybody will laugh at that dude.
Moreover, I don't get what you are even in about. You say Iraq in 2003 was nothing compared the Iraq that fought Iran for 8 years and you couldn't defeat them?lol

Dude, Saddam's Iraq prior to our invasion had the largest and most powerful military in the middle east(outside Israel). Just because U.S and U.K led invasion decimated them in a few weeks doesn't means you should think it's because Saddam Iraq was weak by then. It's just because they faced a farrrrrrrr more powerful enemy that was way above their league, reason some of their soldiers gave up fighting a war they new they couldn't win when faced against overwhelming firepower. Period. Had it been any other of your middle eastern countries then none of you could have ever come anywhere defeating Iraq, not in 50 years. :)

Don't get me wrong Iran is a powerful country(one of the most powerful in the middle east), but it end there in the middle East. When you start comparing yourselves to world powers and thinking you can crushed them, then that's just delusions.lol. I remember Saddam while facing the invasion in 2003 also making such grandiose remarks/rhetorics like many middle eastern leaders do how he was going to crush and defeat U.S/U.K Led invasion. lol

As for your militias and Islamic terrorist groups Iran and Bashar supported in Iraq after the invasion, well by then Saddam's military ha been utterly defeated. The aftermath crisis and sectarianism was more due to political incapability ofthe leaders we put in place and the actions we took after the invasion. It had nothing to do with military capabilities. Obviously facing suicide bombers/terrorists and militias using hit and run guerrilla warfare is different from conventional military warfare between militaries. It's like comparing the world wars we fought in WWII against Nazis Germany/imperial Japan and fighting small rag tag terrorists suicide Bombers who never dare face fight openly since they know they don't/can't face such powerful forces. 2 completely different things dude.
 
we have no obligation against our enemies, specially a none signed one. They are endangering the security and life by insisting to bring their nuclear powered vessels into closed waters of Persian gulf, and there have been many cases in which these vessels have collided with other ships, and could have led to a disaster.
Sorry, that's simply not how it works in the real world, unless you want to be North Korea.

Article24
Duties of the coastal State

1. The coastal State shall not hamper the innocent passage of foreign ships through the territorial sea except in accordance with this Convention. In particular, in the application of this Convention or of any laws or regulations adopted in conformity with this Convention, the coastal State shall not:

(a) impose requirements on foreign ships which have the practical effect of denying or impairing the right of innocent passage; or

(b) discriminate in form or in fact against the ships of any State or against ships carrying cargoes to, from or on behalf of any State.

2. The coastal State shall give appropriate publicity to any danger to navigation, of which it has knowledge, within its territorial sea.

Article 44
Duties of States bordering straits

States bordering straits shall not hamper transit passage and shall give appropriate publicity to any danger to navigation or overflight within or over the strait of which they have knowledge. There shall be no suspension of transit passage.

pdfnews.jpg



map_securing_oil.jpg

Choke Hormuz and incur the animosity about all Asian nations, including India, China, Japan, South Korea, Australia (these are not exactly the least naval powers in the world)

indian_ocean_sea_lanes.gif

Not even starting to talk about US and Europe, or your neighbours. Not just about oil.

Meanwhile, what collisions with CVNs are you on about? Specifics please (date, location, ships involved, etc)
 
Last edited:
im not questioning Iranian hospitality but the behaviour of this act done by Iranians in this specific case was childish.

Really? So if armed Iranian Military personal were to come 1 mile off a US Naval base off cost of Hawaii what exactly do you think the U.S. military would have done???

They were taken into custody 1 freaking mile from an Iranian Naval base off an Iranian Island in the Persian Gulf!!! And they freaking resisted at first! Iran could have by all right blown them out of the water!
You don't seem to realize that a foreign military invaded Iranian territory and got within a mile of an Iranian military base

Everything Iran's military did was SOP (standard procedure) even recording them!!! Now maybe if the U.S Navy had acted differently by asking for help (SOP) instead of violating Iran's Air Space after Iran wouldn't have released the video and pictures....

Go 16 min into the video

After U.S. sailors violated Iranian territory waters instead of asking for help U.S. sent its fighters to violate Iran's airspace so tell me what exactly do you the U.S. would have done if it was Iranian fighters over Hawaii and Iranian sailors a mile from a U.S. naval base?

and your nagging about a video? LOL!
 
Really? So if armed Iranian Military personal were to come 1 mile off a US Naval base off cost of Hawaii what exactly do you think the U.S. military would have done???
I believe he was referring to the incident with the carrier?
 
I believe he was referring to the incident with the carrier?

1st it was the fake "I'm going to blow u up" video that Iran countered and proved false with it's own recorded version

Then the nonsense about Iran conducting live fire rocket exercises 100 yards from a US carrier which their own video showed that it was made up nonsense then in a matter of a week US sailors & fighter jet violate Iranian territory

Now it's this!!!!!

Every country in the world has the right to intercept any vessel that comes close to it's territory!

That said, Iran's Navy needs to create a direct line with the U.S. Navy or NATO so the U.S. Navy can at the very least verify that the Boats are Iranian!
 
Sorry, that's simply not how it works in the real world, unless you want to be North Korea.

Article24
Duties of the coastal State

1. The coastal State shall not hamper the innocent passage of foreign ships through the territorial sea except in accordance with this Convention. In particular, in the application of this Convention or of any laws or regulations adopted in conformity with this Convention, the coastal State shall not:

(a) impose requirements on foreign ships which have the practical effect of denying or impairing the right of innocent passage; or

(b) discriminate in form or in fact against the ships of any State or against ships carrying cargoes to, from or on behalf of any State.

2. The coastal State shall give appropriate publicity to any danger to navigation, of which it has knowledge, within its territorial sea.

Article 44
Duties of States bordering straits

States bordering straits shall not hamper transit passage and shall give appropriate publicity to any danger to navigation or overflight within or over the strait of which they have knowledge. There shall be no suspension of transit passage.

pdfnews.jpg



map_securing_oil.jpg

Choke Hormuz and incur the animosity about all Asian nations, including India, China, Japan, South Korea, Australia (these are not exactly the least naval powers in the world)

indian_ocean_sea_lanes.gif

Not even starting to talk about US and Europe, or your neighbours. Not just about oil.
Sorry, but this is the only way to deal with the pirates:

Article 14
4.Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with these articles and with other rules of international law.

Article 16
1.The coastal State may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent.
=============
American's presence in Persian gulf is mostly to threaten Iran, as their authorities are doing it every few weeks or months, so their presence is against our national security and isn't considered innocent. so we have the right to block their passage the way we like.

Meanwhile, what collisions with CVNs are you on about? Specifics please (date, location, ships involved, etc)
Your question is rather childish. you have Internet, search keywords for U.S ships collisions and then think what would happen if these were nuclear powered.
a very common news like this:
Two U.S. Navy vessels collide in Strait of Hormuz; Nuclear powered submarine USS Hartford rams into USS New Orleans
 
Sorry, but this is the only way to deal with the pirates:
Namecalling doesn't work in this environment. If you consider USN ships pirate, then you should indicate what it is that they do that makes then worthy of this qualification.

Article 14
4.Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with these articles and with other rules of international law.
Is Iran the only coastal state along this strait? Oman, UAE? What about them and their positions?
How exactly did this CVN passing the strait of Hormuz threaten the peace, good order or security of Iran in particular?
How did this CVN act in non-conformity with the articles of UNCLOS and other rules of international law?

Article 16
1.The coastal State may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent.
You would first have to show how passage of this CVN and escorts isn't innocent before you can take or justify what steps are necessary.

You do realize the difference between innocent passage through territorial waters and transit passage through a strait used for international navigation? A vessel in transit passage is not subject to coastal state enforcement jurisdiction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_passage
http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part3.htm

Besides, if you claim Iran isn't bound to UNCLOS because it is not a party to it (signed, but not ratified, with statement), then why would you expect the US (which never signed in the first place) to be bound by it?

American's presence in Persian gulf is mostly to threaten Iran, as their authorities are doing it every few weeks or months, so their presence is against our national security and isn't considered innocent. so we have the right to block their passage the way we like.
Yes, and Iran doesn't threaten anybody?
(e.g. cutting of the rest of the world from oil supplies originating from other Persian Gulf states?)
Remember this: Between 1984 and 1987 a “Tanker War” took place between Iran and Iraq, where each belligerent (Iran-Iraq War of 1980-1988) began firing on tankers, even neutrals, bound for their respective ports. Shipping in the Persian Gulf dropped by 25%, forcing the intervention of the United States to secure the oil shipping lanes.
https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch1en/appl1en/ch1a2en.html

48370.adapt.768.1.jpg


Your question is rather childish.
No it isn't. You make a claim, you back it up.

you have Internet, search keywords for U.S ships collisions and then think what would happen if these were nuclear powered.
a very common news like this:
Two U.S. Navy vessels collide in Strait of Hormuz; Nuclear powered submarine USS Hartford rams into USS New Orleans
I did. And gues what: nothing on CVN collisions.

You give a single example of a collision between a USN LPD and a USN nuclear submarine from 2009. There was no damage to the sub's nuclear reactor. You do not adres the cause of the incident. No merchant shipping was involved or threatened.

The only other recent collision involving a USN ship in the Strait of Hormuz is from 2007, when the nuclear submarine USS Newport News, traveling submerged, struck MV Mogamigawa, a 300,000-ton Japanese-flagged very large crude tanker, south of the strait. There were no injuries, and no oil leaked from the tanker. According to a Navy spokesman, the collision occurred as a result of the venturi effect : the tanker drove over the area where the submarine was submerged and this created a sucking effect that forced the submarine upward to the surface. Damage was limited to the bow, and the sail, mast and reactors were not damaged

You fail to take into consideration that the Strait of Hormuz, at the mouth of the Gulf, is a very crowded and tense waterway, where one-fifth of the world’s oil is routed. For that reason alone, one can expect a higher incident rate here, as compared to open sea elswhere. Considere:

- In the year 2011, an average of 14 tankers per day passed out of the Persian Gulf through the Strait, carrying 17 million barrels (2,700,000 m3) of crude oil. This was said to represent 35% of the world's seaborne oil shipments and 20% of oil traded worldwide. More than 85% of these crude oil exports went to Asian markets, with Japan, India, South Korea and China as the largest destinations
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=4430
- Ninety percent of oil exported from Middle East Gulf producers is carried through the strait. Merchant ships carrying grain, iron ore, sugar, perishables and containers full of finished goods also pass through the strategic sea corridor en route to Gulf countries and ports such as Dubai.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-hormuz-factbox-idUSTRE6062OG20100107
- At its narrowest point, the Strait is 21 miles wide, but the width of the shipping lane in either direction is only two miles (3km), separated by a two-mile buffer zone. The Strait is deep and wide enough to handle the world's largest crude oil tankers, with about two-thirds of oil shipments carried by tankers in excess of 150,000 deadweight tons.
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=4430

I wonder what the general collision rate per volume of traffic is for the Strait of Hormuz and how it compares to the specific rate for USN ships travelling here. You may wel find (if YOU look) that the civilian collision rate per volume of traffic is worse than that of the USN per volume of its traffic. Besides, collisions involving USN ships aren't necessarily caused by USN ships.

So, in sum, it means, actually, that you were unable to provide anything to back up the claim you made.

Strait_of_Hormuz.jpg

Blue arrows illustrate the strait's Traffic Separation Scheme.

Strait_of_hormuz_full.jpg

Map of Strait of Hormuz with maritime political boundaries (2004)

Note that shipping channels in the Persian Gulf are within the Iranian maritime political boundary, but those in the Strait of Hormuz aren't.

In relation to the Persian Gulf boundaries, note also that there is territorial dispute between Iran and UAE over Tunb as Sughra, Tunb al Kubra and Abu Masi (occupied by Iran, claimed by both Iran and UAE).

AGAIN: check out the 12-sea mile line.
strait-of-hormuz-4.jpg


To traverse the Strait, ships pass through the territorial waters of Iran and Oman under the transit passage provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Although not all countries have ratified the convention, most countries, including the U.S., accept these customary navigation rules as codified in the Convention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Hormuz#Navigation

Transit passage: Persian Gulf to/from Gulf of Oman and Indian Ocean.

The Gibraltar Strait is only 7.7 nautical miles (14.3 km; 8.9 mi) at the strait's narrowest point.
The Malacca Strait is only only 2.8 km (1.5 nautical miles) wide at the Phillips Channel
No trouble with ships there, including USN ships.
 
@Penguin about the tanker war not all tanker wee target . the only tanker who tried to break siege of Iraq by smuggling its oil were target.
And there was no difference between the oil that were exported directly from Iraq or sent to kuwait and then. Exported from there.
 
@Penguin about the tanker war not all tanker wee target . the only tanker who tried to break siege of Iraq by smuggling its oil were target.
And there was no difference between the oil that were exported directly from Iraq or sent to kuwait and then. Exported from there.
Duely noted.
I just mentioned it as example of what the threat of closing Hormuz to civilian traffic might entail to effect.
And, clearly, what it might invoke.
I had and have no intention of splitting hairs on who did what to whom.
 
Speaking of informing oneself, kindly point out where in UNCLOS is says so
I don't have time to read the whole encyclopedia that you posted but for instance;

"Innocent passage" is defined by the convention as passing through waters in an expeditious and continuous manner, which is not "prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security" of the coastal state. Fishing, polluting, weapons practice, and spying are not "innocent", and submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag. Nations can also temporarily suspend innocent passage in specific areas of their territorial seas, if doing so is essential for the protection of its security.

The mere presence of a hostile enemy and a terrorist state like USA anywhere close to Indian ocean is a threat and as Americans know it better, never been, is and will innocent... Spying is the least they exercise every second...

What????:o: U.S forces in Persian gulf Will be destroyed by Iran's IRGC and the rest of Iran?o_O:hitwall:
Iran's IRGC and the whole of Iran couldn't even defeat common Saddam's Iraq for 8years of fighting even though Iraq is your neighbour just bordering you and you think you can end far more powerful world powers like U.S forces and fleet in the Persian gulf??
:hitwall:
You do know that it's the same U.S/U.K led offensive who wiped out Saddam's forces you couldn't defeat for 8years in a 3 weeks right?:tsk:
seems you are either not informed enough about all the stuff that you brought up or trying to convince yourself supporting your delusions...

I recommend more study for below mentioned keywords and concepts maybe we won't see you in this akward position again;

Iran in 1980s Vs Iran in 2020s

Iraqi army size and quality in 1980s yet re-armed its whole army almost 2 times if not 3 times after got destroyed by Iranian forces... All this while Iran were losing jets, choppers, ships with no replacement...

Iran with empty hands... no imports (except some tiny black market deals) defeated 2 times renewed army of Saddam with unlimited support of funds (Persian Gulf Arabs) and weaponry (whole world)... How Iran defeated Saddam? Iran came out of a revolution with no functioning army when the war started... Saddam promised the world to rally in Tehran in weeks!! Yet, after 8 years they left Iran with no land gains + trillion dollar scale reparations imposed on them by UN!!

Iran in 1980s had no functional allies Vs IRan in 2020s has many non-gov armies counting seconds to attack enemies

Saddam in 80s promised Arabs and their masters to rally in Tehran in weeks VS Saddam hanged in Iraq, Iran is the main helping force in Iraq of 2020s...

1980s Iran had no missiles to fire... building them locally!!? They could not even buy them let alone building! Vs Iran 2020s building whatever her enemies thought Iran could not build... Baby... It,s just the start... Bavar 373 or Sahand ships or Fateh Submarine, or Ballistics, or +2500 km cruise missiles or 3000 km radars of all types, Karar tank, etc... are all just the start... USA and its puppets may wait chewing their fingernails for a long long time...

If you could only knew what an Iran 2020s... or 2030s means... you would never bother coming here embarrassing yourself... I let the time do its work... You will hear a lot more soon...

Enough when Iranian generals in response to "Which are Iranian capable enemies that we should focus and be prepared for today?" say: Armies other than US' are long discredited as threats for Iranian armed forces... This includes all Iranian enemies except for the great satan...

You must be in serious psychological state if you really believe in what you said above...

:disagree::-)
 
Namecalling doesn't work in this environment. If you consider USN ships pirate, then you should indicate what it is that they do that makes then worthy of this qualification.
we consider the whole U.S as pirate state, they violated the whole international laws and confiscated 2 billion dollars of our money. the pirates.

Is Iran the only coastal state along this strait? Oman, UAE? What about them and their positions?
How exactly did this CVN passing the strait of Hormuz threaten the peace, good order or security of Iran in particular?
How did this CVN act in non-conformity with the articles of UNCLOS and other rules of international law?
we don't care about other states, they be an American puppet dictatorship or whatever. none of our business.
and again it's the whole U.S army which its presence is against our national security, not just a single ship. U.S navy has unprofessional and hostile behavior, violating our sovereignty, threatening and spying is part of their agenda, thus against our national security, so we have the right to block their passage.

You would first have to show how passage of this CVN and escorts isn't innocent before you can take or justify what steps are necessary.
so according to your logic, even during the war, we should let this specific ship pass and attack us first and then we block its way, very interesting philosophy.


You do realize the difference between innocent passage through territorial waters and transit passage through a strait used for international navigation? A vessel in transit passage is not subject to coastal state enforcement jurisdiction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_passage
http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part3.htm
transit passage with your intended meaning is part of 1982 convention, which we signed with predefined conditions and as I mentioned in previous comment, doesn't grant the Americans even the innocent passage, let alone transit passage. anything in fact:
by refering to 1965 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (p34), only the signed countries can use the benefits of this convention.

Besides, if you claim Iran isn't bound to UNCLOS because it is not a party to it (signed, but not ratified, with statement), then why would you expect the US (which never signed in the first place) to be bound by it?
and why you think Americans didn't even sign it?! they don't want to be bound with any limitations.

Yes, and Iran doesn't threaten anybody?
(e.g. cutting of the rest of the world from oil supplies originating from other Persian Gulf states?)
Remember this: Between 1984 and 1987 a “Tanker War” took place between Iran and Iraq, where each belligerent (Iran-Iraq War of 1980-1988) began firing on tankers, even neutrals, bound for their respective ports. Shipping in the Persian Gulf dropped by 25%, forcing the intervention of the United States to secure the oil shipping lanes.
https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch1en/appl1en/ch1a2en.html

48370.adapt.768.1.jpg
No, we don't threat friendly countries.
The tanker which you mentioned was working for Iraqi dictator, and as usual the harmful presence of U.S navy was supporting that dictator. the dictator which under support of U.S killed millions of people and committed every war crime which he could, used the chemical weapons which were given to him by U.S.


No it isn't. You make a claim, you back it up.


I did. And gues what: nothing on CVN collisions.

You give a single example of a collision between a USN LPD and a USN nuclear submarine from 2009. There was no damage to the sub's nuclear reactor. You do not adres the cause of the incident. No merchant shipping was involved or threatened.

The only other recent collision involving a USN ship in the Strait of Hormuz is from 2007, when the nuclear submarine USS Newport News, traveling submerged, struck MV Mogamigawa, a 300,000-ton Japanese-flagged very large crude tanker, south of the strait. There were no injuries, and no oil leaked from the tanker. According to a Navy spokesman, the collision occurred as a result of the venturi effect : the tanker drove over the area where the submarine was submerged and this created a sucking effect that forced the submarine upward to the surface. Damage was limited to the bow, and the sail, mast and reactors were not damaged

You fail to take into consideration that the Strait of Hormuz, at the mouth of the Gulf, is a very crowded and tense waterway, where one-fifth of the world’s oil is routed. For that reason alone, one can expect a higher incident rate here, as compared to open sea elswhere. Considere:

- In the year 2011, an average of 14 tankers per day passed out of the Persian Gulf through the Strait, carrying 17 million barrels (2,700,000 m3) of crude oil. This was said to represent 35% of the world's seaborne oil shipments and 20% of oil traded worldwide. More than 85% of these crude oil exports went to Asian markets, with Japan, India, South Korea and China as the largest destinations
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=4430
- Ninety percent of oil exported from Middle East Gulf producers is carried through the strait. Merchant ships carrying grain, iron ore, sugar, perishables and containers full of finished goods also pass through the strategic sea corridor en route to Gulf countries and ports such as Dubai.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-hormuz-factbox-idUSTRE6062OG20100107
- At its narrowest point, the Strait is 21 miles wide, but the width of the shipping lane in either direction is only two miles (3km), separated by a two-mile buffer zone. The Strait is deep and wide enough to handle the world's largest crude oil tankers, with about two-thirds of oil shipments carried by tankers in excess of 150,000 deadweight tons.
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=4430

I wonder what the general collision rate per volume of traffic is for the Strait of Hormuz and how it compares to the specific rate for USN ships travelling here. You may wel find (if YOU look) that the civilian collision rate per volume of traffic is worse than that of the USN per volume of its traffic. Besides, collisions involving USN ships aren't necessarily caused by USN ships.

So, in sum, it means, actually, that you were unable to provide anything to back up the claim you made.
I talked about the probability, and I said nuclear vessels, not just a specific one. you are the one who is claiming a CVN is collision proof cause it hasn't happened already.

Strait_of_Hormuz.jpg

Blue arrows illustrate the strait's Traffic Separation Scheme.

Strait_of_hormuz_full.jpg

Map of Strait of Hormuz with maritime political boundaries (2004)

Note that shipping channels in the Persian Gulf are within the Iranian maritime political boundary, but those in the Strait of Hormuz aren't.

In relation to the Persian Gulf boundaries, note also that there is territorial dispute between Iran and UAE over Tunb as Sughra, Tunb al Kubra and Abu Masi (occupied by Iran, claimed by both Iran and UAE).

AGAIN: check out the 12-sea mile line.
strait-of-hormuz-4.jpg



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Hormuz#Navigation

Transit passage: Persian Gulf to/from Gulf of Oman and Indian Ocean.

The Gibraltar Strait is only 7.7 nautical miles (14.3 km; 8.9 mi) at the strait's narrowest point.
The Malacca Strait is only only 2.8 km (1.5 nautical miles) wide at the Phillips Channel
No trouble with ships there, including USN ships.
territorial dispute only in your media, in reality those islands are part of our country and are under full control of Iran, Iranian live there and rule there, no foreign country dares to get close to them. mentioning about this so called dispute wont help you.
 
I don't have time to read the whole encyclopedia that you posted but for instance;
Then don't. However, since it is hard to discuss international law of the sea without actually familiarizing yourself with it, stay out of discussion of unclos then.

The mere presence of a hostile enemy and a terrorist state like USA anywhere close to Indian ocean is a threat and as Americans know it better, never been, is and will innocent... Spying is the least they exercise every second.

Yes sure, hostile, since the US is constantly shooting up Iran and has been for the past decades. As for spying, if you broadcast your encrypted or unencrypted communications beyond you territory, it can be picked up by anybody. And it is not that Iran has done absolutely nothing of the sort. So, big blah blah on you.

we consider the whole U.S as pirate state, they violated the whole international laws and confiscated 2 billion dollars of our money. the pirates.
Lateral move. Since we were discussing Unclos, how does unclos define pirates?

we don't care about other states, they be an American puppet dictatorship or whatever. none of our business.
As indicated, shipping channels in the Strait of Hormuz are outside the internationally agreed upon Iranian maritime political boundaries.
Strait_of_hormuz_full.jpg


and again it's the whole U.S army which its presence is against our national security, not just a single ship.
Lateral move, copied of post by previous poster. We were discussing US and Iranian naval activity in the Strait of Hormuz in a specific instance.

U.S navy has unprofessional and hostile behavior, violating our sovereignty, threatening and spying is part of their agenda, thus against our national security, so we have the right to block their passage.
Try to be specific: instances, when, how, doicumentation etc
Iran has no right to block anything beyond its own territory.

so according to your logic, even during the war, we should let this specific ship pass and attack us first and then we block its way, very interesting philosophy.
No, not at all. But when you accuse you need to back up your accusation with evidence. Or at least that it the generally accepted procedure among civilized peoples.

transit passage with your intended meaning is part of 1982 convention, which we signed with predefined conditions and as I mentioned in previous comment, doesn't grant the Americans even the innocent passage, let alone transit passage. anything in fact:
by refering to 1965 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (p34), only the signed countries can use the benefits of this convention.[/.quote]
If you harass USN ships so they have to make sudden course changes in a narrow strait used intensively by commercial shipping of a all nations, you endanger vessels of other nations than US and maritime safety in general. Is Iran in conflict with those nations? Are you suggesting Iran has no obligations when it comes to safeguarding maritime safety? You insist on being North Korea?

and why you think Americans didn't even sign it?! they don't want to be bound with any limitations.
I'm sure they have their reasons. But as I pointed out if neither is (or considers themself) bound by UNCLOS, or any other international law of the sea, then there is no basis for making complaints, is there. By either party.

No, we don't threat friendly countries.
The tanker which you mentioned was working for Iraqi dictator, and as usual the harmful presence of U.S navy was supporting that dictator. the dictator which under support of U.S killed millions of people and committed every war crime which he could, used the chemical weapons which were given to him by U.S.
Sure, completely take what I said out of context. Point is that it was not the other Gulf states or non Gulf nations firing at tankers. And tankers were hit flying flags neither Iranian nor Iraqi. And there are only a few navies worldwide that have the capability to respond on short notice and with necessary means to such a threat against international shipping.

Discuss more later, got to go now.
 
we consider the whole U.S as pirate state, they violated the whole international laws and confiscated 2 billion dollars of our money. the pirates.

we don't care about other states, they be an American puppet dictatorship or whatever. none of our business.
and again it's the whole U.S army which its presence is against our national security, not just a single ship. U.S navy has unprofessional and hostile behavior, violating our sovereignty, threatening and spying is part of their agenda, thus against our national security, so we have the right to block their passage.
This is Iran's official position? Because I can't be bothered with personal opions in this matter



I talked about the probability, and I said nuclear vessels, not just a specific one. you are the one who is claiming a CVN is collision proof cause it hasn't happened already.

First you said: " They are endangering the security and life by insisting to bring their nuclear powered vessels into closed waters of Persian gulf, and there have been many cases in which these vessels have collided with other ships, and could have led to a disaster.'"

THAT CAN REFER ONLY TO CVN'S AND SS(B)N'S, as there are no other nuclear powered vessels in the USN. SSBNs you can safely rule out: they will not be risked in confined waters. So, that leaves CVNs and SSNs. We were discussing CVNs. You gave an example of SSN.

Also you spoke of OTHER SHIPS, your example only involved other USN ship. Since the damage was minor and did not affect the reactor, this is not endangering the security and life of any other than the sailors aboard these ships.

I added one more sub example, involving a merchant ship. Same remarks apply: minor damage, reactor not affected.

That's 2 cases in the past 15 years, in one of the most heavily travelled Straits of the world, with permanent USN presence in the Gulf. Where are your MANY CASES that CVNs and SSNs have collided with other ships in the Hormuz Strait?


territorial dispute only in your media, in reality those islands are part of our country and are under full control of Iran, Iranian live there and rule there, no foreign country dares to get close to them. mentioning about this so called dispute wont help you.
The islands are in the Persian Gulf, not the Strait of Hormuz (which we were discussing), where the relevant shipping channels are. I did mention the islands were under de factor Iranian control.

" My" media:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/05/20125611107172123.html
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/04/201241610277611428.html

See also:
http://www.geocurrents.info/cultural-geography/iran’s-territorial-disputes-with-bahrain-and-the-united-arab-emirates[/quote]
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom