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

[Blue Marlin]

The better person? They were about to enter Iranian territory, and they come from thousands of miles away. How would you like it if Russia or China drove warships near your country and every once in a while, sailed in your territorial waters? Of course you would be whining, but if uncle sam does it, they should be on the right side, naturally.

there welcome any time,
there coming home to see dad,

where does it say there were entering Iranian waters ?

 

[scythian500]

f the Iranians were serious, they would fire on it, not try to force it off course. They know what would happened if they attacked it.

Seriously!!? Your words deserve a "No comment" sticker... yet, for info....

What about we missile every ship forgot to use our waters' protocol? There is no war yet... We are on peace time technically... We intercept and make intruders leave.. This is what all nations would do...

there welcome any time,
there coming home to see dad,

where does it say there were entering Iranian waters ?

You don't need to cross into Iranian waters in Hormuz Strait... inform yourself... Iran as one side of the strait can question or even stop any ships crossing the strait.. This is the int rule.. If Iran decides that a ship is a threat at that moment she would easily intercept and question them to make sure they know where they are... No big deal... although, USA pride is harmed hit since Iran treating them like any other normal nation...

It is like when you have a bully in your school which is 200 pounds giant yet a brave 100 pound anti-bully comes everytime shiiiting on that guy's false pride.. u know.. the whole school would cheer the 100 pound guy unless you are a substance of the 200 pound bully...

 

[Serpentine]

there welcome any time,
there coming home to see dad,

where does it say there were entering Iranian waters ?

Lol you don't expect U.S saying they were entering Iranian waters right? According to them, Iranians 'harassed' them with some small boats while they were innocently crossing. According to Iran though, they were approaching Iranian territorial waters.

 

[Jaanbaz]

USA acts like a bully..............And when Bully gets pissed they either attack you or self destruct. They have all ready bullied enough countries, I think this time they might self destruct.

 

[raptor22]

there welcome any time,
there coming home to see dad,

where does it say there were entering Iranian waters ?

There is no international water there .. either vessel should pass through Iran or Oman waters ....

As the narrowest point of the Strait of Hormuz is twenty-one nautical miles, all vessels passing through the Strait must traverse the territorial waters of Iran and Oman.​

 

[Oldman1]

Seriously!!? Your words deserve a "No comment" sticker... yet, for info....

What about we missile every ship forgot to use our waters' protocol? There is no war yet... We are on peace time technically... We intercept and make intruders leave.. This is what all nations would do...

I deserve no comment, don't respond. Its that simple. Like I've said, if the Iranians were serious in attacking the ship, it be a different story. Its no different than the Russians or Chinese harassing our ships.

Why shoot at it? We are not at war with U.S, it's stupid to shoot at a vessel that is about to enter your territorial waters with no hostile intentions (at least what it appears to be). Neither Iran nor U.S are stupid to start a war over something like this.

Only if you are serious. Last time the Iranians attacked our ships, it didn't go well for Iran and we weren't at war. You know that.

 

[Samak]

I deserve no comment, don't respond. Its that simple. Like I've said, if the Iranians were serious in attacking the ship, it be a different story. Its no different than the Russians or Chinese harassing our ships.



Only if you are serious. Last time the Iranians attacked our ships, it didn't go well for Iran and we weren't at war. You know that.

don't worry , next time we will repay ...

 

[Rukarl]

Only if you are serious. Last time the Iranians attacked our ships, it didn't go well for Iran and we weren't at war. You know that.

There is a very big difference between what happened in the 1980's when Iran was in a bloody war were it could not even import bullets and was weak compared to the Iran of today. Iran of today does this to you:

US today could try do what it did in the 80's but I think your people realise, it would not end well for them.

If you want to avoid such humiliations, take your ships and go back home. Persian gulf belongs to us. It did long before you existed and long after you perish. Nothing will ever change that fact.

 

[Penguin]

strait of Hormoz is our waters, all ships must identify themselves and their course properly to pass through it, in the published video American crew on the radio uses a fake name instead of the "Persian gulf", if the so called "better persons" want to be provoking , then we can be even more provoking (treat them better!).

Iran is an UNCLOS signatory (signed Dec 10, 1982)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_..._Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea#Signatories

The convention set the limit of various areas, measured from a carefully defined baseline. (Normally, a sea baseline follows the low-water line, but when the coastline is deeply indented, has fringing islands or is highly unstable, straight baselines may be used.) The areas are as follows:

Internal waters
Covers all water and waterways on the landward side of the baseline. The coastal state is free to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource. Foreign vessels have no right of passage within internal waters.
Territorial waters
Out to 12 nautical miles (22 kilometres; 14 miles) from the baseline, the coastal state is free to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource. Vessels were given the right of innocent passage through any territorial waters, with strategic straits allowing the passage of military craft as transit passage, in that naval vessels are allowed to maintain postures that would be illegal in territorial waters. "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.
Archipelagic waters
The convention set the definition of Archipelagic States in Part IV, which also defines how the state can draw its territorial borders. A baseline is drawn between the outermost points of the outermost islands, subject to these points being sufficiently close to one another. All waters inside this baseline are designated Archipelagic Waters. The state has sovereignty over these waters (like internal waters), but subject to existing rights including traditional fishing rights of immediately adjacent states.[8] Foreign vessels have right of innocent passage through archipelagic waters (like territorial waters).
Contiguous zone
Beyond the 12-nautical-mile (22 km) limit, there is a further 12 nautical miles (22 km) from the territorial sea baseline limit, the contiguous zone, in which a state can continue to enforce laws in four specific areas: customs, taxation, immigration and pollution, if the infringement started within the state's territory or territorial waters, or if this infringement is about to occur within the state's territory or territorial waters.[9] This makes the contiguous zone a hot pursuit area.
Exclusive economic zones (EEZs)
These extend from the edge of the territorial sea out to 200 nautical miles (370 kilometres; 230 miles) from the baseline. Within this area, the coastal nation has sole exploitation rights over all natural resources. In casual use, the term may include the territorial sea and even the continental shelf. The EEZs were introduced to halt the increasingly heated clashes over fishing rights, although oil was also becoming important. The success of an offshore oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico in 1947 was soon repeated elsewhere in the world, and by 1970 it was technically feasible to operate in waters 4,000 metres deep. Foreign nations have the freedom of navigation and overflight, subject to the regulation of the coastal states. Foreign states may also lay submarine pipes and cables.
Continental shelf
The continental shelf is defined as the natural prolongation of the land territory to the continental margin's outer edge, or 200 nautical miles (370 km) from the coastal state's baseline, whichever is greater. A state's continental shelf may exceed 200 nautical miles (370 km) until the natural prolongation ends. However, it may never exceed 350 nautical miles (650 kilometres; 400 miles) from the baseline; or it may never exceed 100 nautical miles (190 kilometres; 120 miles) beyond the 2,500-meter isobath (the line connecting the depth of 2,500 meters). Coastal states have the right to harvest mineral and non-living material in the subsoil of its continental shelf, to the exclusion of others. Coastal states also have exclusive control over living resources "attached" to the continental shelf, but not to creatures living in the water column beyond the exclusive economic zone.

So, no, the Strait of Hormuz isn't all Iranian. Just its own territorial waters (12 nm). There actually is a stretch of international waters, before you end up in the territorial waters of UAE.

UNLOS see
PART II TERRITORIAL SEA AND CONTIGUOUS ZONE
SECTION 3. INNOCENT PASSAGE IN THE TERRITORIAL SEA

SUBSECTION A. RULES APPLICABLE TO ALL SHIPS
Article 24

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.


SUBSECTION C. RULES APPLICABLE TO
WARSHIPS AND OTHER GOVERNMENT SHIPS
OPERATED FOR NON-COMMERCIAL PURPOSES


Article30


Non-compliance by warships with the laws and regulations of the coastal State

If any warship does not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal State concerning passage through the territorial sea and disregards any request for compliance therewith which is made to it, the coastal State may require it to leave the territorial sea immediately.


Article32


Immunities of warships and other government ships operated for non-commercial purposes

With such exceptions as are contained in subsection A and in articles 30 and 31, nothing in this Convention affects the immunities of warships and other government ships operated for non-commercial purposes.

PART III STRAITS USED FOR INTERNATIONAL NAVIGATION

You don't need to cross into Iranian waters in Hormuz Strait... inform yourself... Iran as one side of the strait can question or even stop any ships crossing the strait.. This is the int rule.. If Iran decides that a ship is a threat at that moment she would easily intercept and question them to make sure they know where they are... No big deal... although, USA pride is harmed hit since Iran treating them like any other normal nation...

Speaking of informing oneself, kindly point out where in UNCLOS is says so
http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/UNCLOS-TOC.htm

Lol you don't expect U.S saying they were entering Iranian waters right? According to them, Iranians 'harassed' them with some small boats while they were innocently crossing. According to Iran though, they were approaching Iranian territorial waters.

APPROACHING is not the same as ENTERING.

Strait of Hormuz Legal Status
In a December 1982 declaration accompanying signature on the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), Iran appeared to require prior authorization for warships to enter territorial sea and limited transit passage right in Strait of Hormuz to signatories of 1982 Convention. Iran's declaration stated: "In the light of customary international law, the provisions of article 21, read in association with article 19 (on the Meaning of Innocent Passage) and article 25 (on the Rights of Protection of the Coastal States), recognizes (though implicitly) the rights of the Coastal States to take measures to safeguard their security interests including the adoption of laws and regulations regarding, inter alia, the requirements of prior authorization for warships willing to exercise the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea."

Under the 1982 LOS Convention, a coastal state may claim a territorial sea up to 12 nautical miles from the coastline. Each nautical mile is equal to 1852 meters. While the territorial sea is part of the sovereign territory of the state, ships of all states have a right of innocent passage through the territorial. Warships which do not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal state concerning passage through the territorial sea can be ordered to leave the territorial sea immediately.

On May 2, 1993, the Government of Iran completed legislative action on an "Act on the Marine Areas of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the Persian Gulf and the Oman Sea." The legislation provides a reasonably comprehensive set of maritime claims to a territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone (EEZ), and continental shelf, and Iran's jurisdictional claims within those areas. Many of these claims do not comport with the requirements of international law as reflected in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOS Convention). Warships and certain other ships are, contrary to international law, required to receive prior approval to engage in innocent passage.

Iran's requirement for prior approval is not recognized by the US. The LOS Convention does not permit a coastal State to require a foreign vessel to seek the prior authorization of, or notification to, the coastal State as a condition of conducting innocent passage through its territorial sea. Warships representing a wide variety of nations pass through Iran's territorial sea in innocent passage without objection from Iran, despite Iran's requirement that prior authorization be obtained for each transit. These examples of State practice, shared in by many nations and fully consistent with international law, appear to outweigh Iran's claims to restrict freedom of navigation. The US protested this stated requirement in 1983 and 1987, conducted operational assertions in 1989 and 1992 of prior permission requirement, and conducted regular transits of the Strait of Hormuz starting in 1983.

As of 2007 the United States remained a non-signatory of the 1982 United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (USCLOS), yet strongly supports the navigational causes contained therein. The U.S. Freedom of Navigation program has ensured that excessive coastal state claims over the world's oceans and airspace are repeatedly challenged. By diplomatic protests and operational assertions, the United States has insisted upon adherence by the nations of the world to the international law of the sea, as reflected in the UN Law of the Sea Convention.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/arabian-gauntlet.htm

 

[mohsen]

Iran is an UNCLOS signatory (signed Dec 10, 1982)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_..._Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea#Signatories

The convention set the limit of various areas, measured from a carefully defined baseline. (Normally, a sea baseline follows the low-water line, but when the coastline is deeply indented, has fringing islands or is highly unstable, straight baselines may be used.) The areas are as follows:

Internal waters
Covers all water and waterways on the landward side of the baseline. The coastal state is free to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource. Foreign vessels have no right of passage within internal waters.
Territorial waters
Out to 12 nautical miles (22 kilometres; 14 miles) from the baseline, the coastal state is free to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource. Vessels were given the right of innocent passage through any territorial waters, with strategic straits allowing the passage of military craft as transit passage, in that naval vessels are allowed to maintain postures that would be illegal in territorial waters. "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.
Archipelagic waters
The convention set the definition of Archipelagic States in Part IV, which also defines how the state can draw its territorial borders. A baseline is drawn between the outermost points of the outermost islands, subject to these points being sufficiently close to one another. All waters inside this baseline are designated Archipelagic Waters. The state has sovereignty over these waters (like internal waters), but subject to existing rights including traditional fishing rights of immediately adjacent states.[8] Foreign vessels have right of innocent passage through archipelagic waters (like territorial waters).
Contiguous zone
Beyond the 12-nautical-mile (22 km) limit, there is a further 12 nautical miles (22 km) from the territorial sea baseline limit, the contiguous zone, in which a state can continue to enforce laws in four specific areas: customs, taxation, immigration and pollution, if the infringement started within the state's territory or territorial waters, or if this infringement is about to occur within the state's territory or territorial waters.[9] This makes the contiguous zone a hot pursuit area.
Exclusive economic zones (EEZs)
These extend from the edge of the territorial sea out to 200 nautical miles (370 kilometres; 230 miles) from the baseline. Within this area, the coastal nation has sole exploitation rights over all natural resources. In casual use, the term may include the territorial sea and even the continental shelf. The EEZs were introduced to halt the increasingly heated clashes over fishing rights, although oil was also becoming important. The success of an offshore oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico in 1947 was soon repeated elsewhere in the world, and by 1970 it was technically feasible to operate in waters 4,000 metres deep. Foreign nations have the freedom of navigation and overflight, subject to the regulation of the coastal states. Foreign states may also lay submarine pipes and cables.
Continental shelf
The continental shelf is defined as the natural prolongation of the land territory to the continental margin's outer edge, or 200 nautical miles (370 km) from the coastal state's baseline, whichever is greater. A state's continental shelf may exceed 200 nautical miles (370 km) until the natural prolongation ends. However, it may never exceed 350 nautical miles (650 kilometres; 400 miles) from the baseline; or it may never exceed 100 nautical miles (190 kilometres; 120 miles) beyond the 2,500-meter isobath (the line connecting the depth of 2,500 meters). Coastal states have the right to harvest mineral and non-living material in the subsoil of its continental shelf, to the exclusion of others. Coastal states also have exclusive control over living resources "attached" to the continental shelf, but not to creatures living in the water column beyond the exclusive economic zone.

So, no, the Strait of Hormuz isn't all Iranian. Just its own territorial waters (12 nm). There actually is a stretch of international waters, before you end up in the territorial waters of UAE.

UNLOS see
PART II TERRITORIAL SEA AND CONTIGUOUS ZONE
SECTION 3. INNOCENT PASSAGE IN THE TERRITORIAL SEA

SUBSECTION A. RULES APPLICABLE TO ALL SHIPS
Article 24

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.


SUBSECTION C. RULES APPLICABLE TO
WARSHIPS AND OTHER GOVERNMENT SHIPS
OPERATED FOR NON-COMMERCIAL PURPOSES


Article30


Non-compliance by warships with the laws and regulations of the coastal State

If any warship does not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal State concerning passage through the territorial sea and disregards any request for compliance therewith which is made to it, the coastal State may require it to leave the territorial sea immediately.


Article32


Immunities of warships and other government ships operated for non-commercial purposes

With such exceptions as are contained in subsection A and in articles 30 and 31, nothing in this Convention affects the immunities of warships and other government ships operated for non-commercial purposes.

PART III STRAITS USED FOR INTERNATIONAL NAVIGATION

For Iran the 1982 convention is temporary and voluntary, we signed that convention, yet we are not a party cause we didn't take the necessary procedures to officially join. and even for signing it we defined several conditions, including:

1.by refering to 1965 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (p34), only the signed countries can use the benefits of this convention. so U.S has no right whatsoever.

2.for innocent passage, we maintain the right to adopt certain security measures, including asking for prior permission.

also when U.S threatens us with their "below the table options", and blocks or steals our money (just like bunch of low life pirates), then we have every right to retaliate, 1958 Geneva convention allows us to block any passage which we (and no body else) considers harmful and Jus ad bellum backs our stance on this matter.

 

[Penguin]

For Iran the 1982 convention is temporary and voluntary, we signed that convention, yet we are not a party cause we didn't take the necessary procedures to officially join. and even for signing it we defined several conditions, including:

1.by refering to 1965 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (p34), only the signed countries can use the benefits of this convention. so U.S has no right whatsoever.

2.for innocent passage, we maintain the right to adopt certain security measures, including asking for prior permission.

also when U.S threatens us with their "below the table options", and blocks or steals our money (just like bunch of low life pirates), then we have every right to retaliate, 1958 Geneva convention allows us to block any passage which we (and no body else) considers harmful and Jus ad bellum backs our stance on this matter.

Indeed, although the United States helped shape the Convention and its subsequent revisions, and though it signed the 1994 Agreement on Implementation, it has not signed the Convention (as it objected to Part XI of the Convention).

However, that doesn't relieve Iran of its obligations towards ANY ships transiting its territorial waters, or using international waters. UNCLOS specifies both rights of others i.e. users of the seaways and duties of signatories/parties i.e. coastal states. One of those duties is to help ships and shipping be safe, to not endanger ships or shipping. (as you do when you 'force' a CVN - a floating nuclear reactor - to suddenly alter course, bringing it close to e.g. other non-US ships and/or drilling platforms).

 

[mohsen]

Indeed, although the United States helped shape the Convention and its subsequent revisions, and though it signed the 1994 Agreement on Implementation, it has not signed the Convention (as it objected to Part XI of the Convention).

However, that doesn't relieve Iran of its obligations towards ANY ships transiting its territorial waters, or using international waters. UNCLOS specifies both rights of others i.e. users of the seaways and duties of signatories/parties i.e. coastal states. One of those duties is to help ships and shipping be safe, to not endanger ships or shipping. (as you do when you 'force' a CVN - a floating nuclear reactor - to suddenly alter course, bringing it close to e.g. other non-US ships and/or drilling platforms).

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.

 

[mike2000 is back]

There is a very big difference between what happened in the 1980's when Iran was in a bloody war were it could not even import bullets and was weak compared to the Iran of today. Iran of today does this to you:

US today could try do what it did in the 80's but I think your people realise, it would not end well for them.

If you want to avoid such humiliations, take your ships and go back home. Persian gulf belongs to us. It did long before you existed and long after you perish. Nothing will ever change that fact.

Come on guys dont be so emotional. Persian gulf doesn't belong to Iran.Else you will have to control/invade/take over other neighbouring countries ike UAE, Omana and other neighbouring countries shores.
Plus I don't see why this news is such a big deal. ome countries have acted this way before with vessels/warships from other nations, even though sometimes (as its the case with Iran here) some of these nations overeact. However it's not enough reason to go to war or fire at a vessel.

Finally, there is no need to even make statements like you will end the U.S navy if something bad happened. Come on dude, you know very well that's not even a debate we should be having. Iranian navvy vs U.S navy?

 

[Rukarl]

Finally, there is no need to even make statements like you will end the U.S navy if something bad happened. Come on dude, you know very well that's not even a debate we should be having. Iranian navvy vs U.S navy?

Nobody is taking about a general "Iranian navy vs US navy" scenario here. How old are you? 12? we are talking about their forces in the Persian gulf region vs IRGC and the rest of Iran. We are not talking about a conventional war in the open ocean. Are you that moronic to think they could survive the barrage of attack on their sitting duck vessels in the Persian gulf? They could not even deal with the anti ship ballistic missiles Iran possess never mind the rest that will be going their way.

Your kind can only talk big, but this is not hollywood, in real life you just go on knees at first sign of trouble.

 

[mike2000 is back]

Nobody is taking about a general "Iranian navy vs US navy" scenario here. How old are you? 12? we are talking about their forces in the Persian gulf region vs IRGC and the rest of Iran. We are not talking about a conventional war in the open ocean. Are you that moronic to think they could survive the barrage of attack on their sitting duck vessels in the Persian gulf? They could not even deal with the anti ship ballistic missiles Iran possess never mind the rest that will be going their way.

Your kind can only talk big, but this is not hollywood, in real life you just go on knees at first sign of trouble.

What???? U.S forces in Persian gulf Will be destroyed by Iran's IRGC and the rest of Iran?
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??

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?