US Destroyer Fired Warning Shots At Four Iranian Vessels In Strait Of Hormuz

[Penguin]

For Iran the 1982 convention is temporary and voluntary, we run it as long as we desire, 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.
---------------
it was a matter of copy/paste though, if you like we can start it all over again:
defence.pk/threads/iranian-vessels-harass-u-s-destroyer-forces-it-to-change-course.445932/page-2
#post-8627537

You are aware INNOCENT PASSAGE (= territorial waters) and TRANSIT PASSAGE (= using a strait to move between high seas) are two different things?

Since Iran has not blocked anyone's passage, you've still not given the specific legal basis justifying the behaviour of the boats in this case....

The Persian gulf doesn't belong to Iran (solely).

 

[VEVAK]

operating in accordance with international law in international waters


IRGC ignored maritime "rules of the road" as set out in the 1972 Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, ignoring multiple warnings, creating a dangerous, harassing environment.

As a reminder, the article states, there are temporarily no US aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf region at this moment. So, perhaps read first before opening yer mouth.


As the article states "a U.S. Navy destroyer fired three warning shots at four of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps vessels"

Approaching territorial waters means 'still in international waters' and that means 'abide by the internationally established traffic rules'. Of course, Hormuz Strait is rather narrow. But international has paid special attention to such situations as passage through straits, including UNCLOS, to which Iran is a signatory.

Utter nonsense!!!!!!!!!! From Iran's Lark Island to the other side is ~50 km so all they really have to do is stay on the other half & they would never encounter an Iranian speed boat getting within 1km of their ships!!!!!!!!!
It's simple when you come on Iran's half that makes your the aggressor and it means your asking for it!

What exactly do you spose the U.S. Navy would do if Iranian ships came within 25km (15 miles) of Pearl Harbor! Yea I thought so!


they can spin it all they want just like how they spin the Iraq war but THEY ARE THE AGRESSORS!

There are a lot of fools today that think the U.S. took down Saddam in 30 days that is the propaganda US likes to sip but it's nothing but utter delusion and a complete lie

Iran & Iraq were at war for 8 years then right after their was Desert Storm and between 1991-2002 the U.S. bombed and carried out massive missile attacks and bombing on Iraq every other year
Operation Northern watch, Operation Southern Watch, Operation Desert Fox,.....
So 30 day's my a....... And this is just another lie!
Saddam oppressed the Shia & Kurds & in the entire country Saddam only had ~1 Million Sunni Arab Men age 16-60 in 2003 that were fit for military service!!!!!!!

Iran is not scared of the U.S. so it's best they stay away!

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

you see it wrong! HOW DARE IRANIANS COME SO CLOSE THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER!

Big Mouth, No Brains, wants to voice an opinion without even opening the link. How sad...
There are no US Aircraft Carriers in the gulf at the moment.

Actually, the whole issue had nothing to do with bases, nuclear weapons, Arleigh Burke destroyers or the Mk 41 VLS system. It was an example of double standards regarding international waters. The US is keen to remind Iran of UNCLOS (despite not being a party to it), even though it enforced a naval blockade on a sovereign nation, the blockade itself being enforced in international waters. The point is, the US is hypocritical and when its about national interests, UNCLOS matters less than Obama's earwax.

UNCLOS happened in 1994.
I leave it to you to google the dates for the Cuba crisis...

 

[Draco.IMF]

Big Mouth, No Brains, wants to voice an opinion without even opening the link. How sad...
.

jesus christ, a swede faster triggered than a landmine.
to bad you guys over there werent triggered as your country turned in a islamic-feministic shithole....

 

[AmirPatriot]

UNCLOS happened in 1994.
I leave it to you to google the dates for the Cuba crisis...

Good point. Though I think mine is still relevant since the US often talks about freedom of navigation and international waters etc. especially since their maintaining carriers near Iran in the 80s so they could escort Saddam's oil was done using the excuse of "international waters".

Not thin air, but Paris.
View attachment 367463

I wonder why he was in Paris. It couldn't be the Shah exiled him there for being too anti-Shah, could it...

Utter nonsense!!!!!!!!!! From Iran's Lark Island to the other side is ~50 km so all they really have to do is stay on the other half & they would never encounter an Iranian speed boat getting within 1km of their ship

Not a great example if you want to prove your point. Much of Persian Gulf is impassable/impractical for larger vessels because of its shallow depth.

 

[Penguin]

Utter nonsense!!!!!!!!!!

I fully agree with your rating of your own post.

Have a nice day.

 

[mohsen]

You are aware INNOCENT PASSAGE (= territorial waters) and TRANSIT PASSAGE (= using a strait to move between high seas) are two different things?

Since Iran has not blocked anyone's passage, you've still not given the specific legal basis justifying the behaviour of the boats in this case....

The Persian gulf doesn't belong to Iran (solely).

Transit passage only exists in the 1982 convention which as I mentioned in my previous post doesn't apply to U.S.
So there is only innocent passage and we decide which passage is innocent or not.

Also since U.S has started an economic war against us, we have the right to retaliate by blocking even their innocent economic passage.
It's called Jus ad bellum.

 

[Penguin]

Transit passage only exists in the 1982 convention which as I mentioned in my previous post doesn't apply to U.S.
So there is only innocent passage and we decide which passage is innocent or not.

Also since U.S has started an economic war against us, we have the right to retaliate by blocking even their innocent economic passage.
It's called Jus ad bellum.

Well then, either block them or stop putting up a looser show, mr muscle.

Anyway, whatever you do relative to US ships may not lead to situations that endanger 'other than US ships' using the strait.

(Iran doesn't 'own' all of the Persian Gulf, the Hormuz Strait, or the Arbian Sea. All you say has nothing to do with the actual behavior of individual ships in the sea lanes here, and you are not providing proof of any breach of international law ... indeed, even the Iranian government isn't)

The Strait of Hormuz presents an interesting legal situation. On the one hand, Iran has signed but not ratified the UNCLOS, but it has ratified the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone. On the other hand, Oman, the other coastal state, has ratified UNCLOS. Both Iran and Oman, however, subject the passage of foreign warships to prior notification. The United States has not signed UNCLOS but considers it to reflect customary international law.

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. The rights of passage for foreign vessels under international law will consequently be subject to either the rules of non-suspendable innocent passage or transit passage depending on the applicable legal regime,

happened to be the first case brought before the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”). The ICJ confirmed the customary international law rule, used in international navigation, that foreign warships have the right of innocent passage in straits during peacetime. This rule of non-suspendable innocent passage for all vessels was subsequently codified in the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone (œ1958 Geneva Convention€). Essentially, this meant that during peacetime the coastal state could only prohibit the passage of any foreign-flagged vessel if its passage was non-innocent.

When signing UNCLOS, Iran declared that it would apply the transit passage regime only to those states that had ratified the convention. As to other states, such as the United States, it would apply the provisions of the 1958 Geneva Convention. Importantly, regardless of the differences between these two rules of passage, both instruments prohibit the unjustified blocking of passage of all vessels.

The next question is assessing what implications there might be for Iranian actions as a result of the differences between the UNCLOS transit passage and non-suspendable innocent passage. Both regimes require that passage be “continuous and expeditious.” UNCLOS Article 19, which is identical to Article 14(4) of the 1958 Geneva Convention, defines “innocent passage” as passage that is not prejudicial to the peace, good order, or security of the coastal state. The 1958 Geneva Convention provides that the coastal state cannot suspend innocent passage rights in straits. In addition, UNCLOS provides specific examples of non-innocent passage that are not in the 1958 Geneva Convention. These include, inter alia: the threat or actual use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, or political independence of the coastal state, or in any other manner in violation of the United Nations Charter; using or even practicing with weapons; intelligence gathering; acts of propaganda; or launching, landing, or taking on board any aircraft or military device. In such cases of non-innocent activities, the coastal state can prevent passage.

https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/16/issue/16/transit-passage-rights-strait-hormuz-and-iran’s-threats-block-passage

You still need to first show that a specific ship or group of ships conducts non-innocent activities during a particular passage.i.e. that specific ship's activities are prejudicial to the peace, good order, or security of the coastal state (not otherwise specified, unlike in UNCLOS).

 

[VEVAK]

Not a great example if you want to prove your point. Much of Persian Gulf is impassable/impractical for larger vessels because of its shallow depth.

Are you saying there is no shipping line on the other half of Hormoz & they have to come on Iran's half?
Clearly not!

It's 50km across and their are plenty of shipping routs on the other side!!!!!!! They get close to Iranian territorial waters on purpose to create tensions

Water is deeper on the other side so there is absolutely no reason to get close to Iran's side

 

[AmirPatriot]

Are you saying there is no shipping line on the other half of Hormoz & they have to come on Iran's half?
Clearly not!

It's 50km across and their are plenty of shipping routs on the other side!!!!!!! They get close to Iranian territorial waters on purpose to create tensions

View attachment 367871

Water is deeper on the other side so there is absolutely no reason to get close to Iran's side

Your own picture just countered your point. There are only 2 narrow shipping lanes in between Larak and Oman. 1 for going into the PG, 1 for out. Iran is closest to the "in" route.

I never said they come in Iran's half, but they come close.

 

[mohsen]

Well then, either block them or stop putting up a looser show, mr muscle.

Americans are the one who put a looser show, by saying Iran did this, Iran did that.

Anyway, whatever you do relative to US ships may not lead to situations that endanger 'other than US ships' using the strait.

U.S and it's military allies. unless they announce their neutrality and keep away.

(Iran doesn't 'own' all of the Persian Gulf, the Hormuz Strait, or the Arbian Sea. All you say has nothing to do with the actual behavior of individual ships in the sea lanes here, and you are not providing proof of any breach of international law ... indeed, even the Iranian government isn't)


https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/16/issue/16/transit-passage-rights-strait-hormuz-and-iran’s-threats-block-passage

You still need to first show that a specific ship or group of ships conducts non-innocent activities during a particular passage.i.e. that specific ship's activities are prejudicial to the peace, good order, or security of the coastal state (not otherwise specified, unlike in UNCLOS).

when the president of a country says "all options are on the table", it's a direct threat of war, all of their ships will be considered a threat and against our security. no more proof is needed.

Are you saying there is no shipping line on the other half of Hormoz & they have to come on Iran's half?
Clearly not!

It's 50km across and their are plenty of shipping routs on the other side!!!!!!! They get close to Iranian territorial waters on purpose to create tensions

View attachment 367871

Water is deeper on the other side so there is absolutely no reason to get close to Iran's side

their big ships have to eventually pass through our waters at some point. not in the strait necessarily.

 

[raptor22]

Well then, either block them or stop putting up a looser show, mr muscle.

I could clearly remember back in 2013-14 when Iran navy commander announce that Iranian navy had scheduled to send Iranian warships to the Atlantic ocean American started acting as if it was an imminent threat and talked about Iran nuclear weapons carried by those ships or possible Iran EMP bombing of America ... and blah blah ... and we have not sent any ship to the Atlantic ocean yet ..
All this happened while Iran has never American soil neither occupied American neighbors Canada and Mexico not conducted military coup in the USA to topple American Gov. ... Iran has never violated the USA territorial water and air space like what American have done in many cases .. Iran has never said that all options are on the table and so on ...
Abiding by international law is a good thing but it should be a 2 way street ,,,

 

[Penguin]

Americans are the one who put a looser show, by saying Iran did this, Iran did that.

U.S and it's military allies. unless they announce their neutrality and keep away.

when the president of a country says "all options are on the table", it's a direct threat of war, all of their ships will be considered a threat and against our security. no more proof is needed.

their big ships have to eventually pass through our waters at some point. not in the strait necessarily.

Hava a great day!

 

[Penguin]

I could clearly remember back in 2013-14 when Iran navy commander announce that Iranian navy had scheduled to send Iranian warships to the Atlantic ocean American started acting as if it was an imminent threat and talked about Iran nuclear weapons carried by those ships or possible Iran EMP bombing of America ... and blah blah ... and we have not sent any ship to the Atlantic ocean yet ..
All this happened while Iran has never American soil neither occupied American neighbors Canada and Mexico not conducted military coup in the USA to topple American Gov. ... Iran has never violated the USA territorial water and air space like what American have done in many cases .. Iran has never said that all options are on the table and so on ...
Abiding by international law is a good thing but it should be a 2 way street ,,,

Please support your claim by reference to official public statements and credible media reports.

FYI there hardly is any coverage of this by major media in various western countries. Certainly not an 'crazy US reaction' (see e.g. http://thediplomat.com/2014/01/irans-navy-deploys-to-atlantic-ocean/ or e.g. http://navaltoday.com/2014/01/22/iranian-navy-ships-head-for-atlantic-ocean/ or e.g. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...hips-in-the-atlantic-are-no-cause-for-concern)

Also IIRC correctly, this was in 2016 and involved the 44th flottila (corvette Alvand + supplyship Busher) sailing down the East African coast, which woudl finally have brought them to South Africa and the South Atlantic.

Late november 2016, they made a port call in Durban, South Africa. (Durban is a port on the Indian Ocean)
http://en.mehrnews.com/news/121593/Navy-s-44th-fleet-moors-at-Port-of-Durban

November 21, 2016

“For the first time, the 44th flotilla comprised of Alvand and Bushehr destroyers could sail around the African continent and enter the Atlantic Ocean,” Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari told reporters in Tehran on Monday.

“The two destroyers are now deployed in Durban Harbor (South Africa),” he added.

http://ifpnews.com/news/politics/security/2016/11/iranian-navy-deploys-warships-atlantic-ocean/

However, although the two ship flotilla subsequently set our for Simon's Town at least (so as to be able to say they entered the Atlantic Ocean), near Cape Town, it returned unexpectedly to Durban on December 7, 2016. Reason: hull damage on the supplier Bushehr.
https://www.pressreader.com/south-africa/the-mercury/20161207/282638917209127

So, since it is not clear where exactly between Durban and Simon's Town the supplyship got damaged, it remains unclear whether the flotilla actually ever made it to the Eastern most boundary of the (South) Atlantic. So, I don't quite see how this trip would have any bearing on (or would constitute in any way a threat to) the US.

THIS CLEARLY IS INCORRECT/INACCURATE REPORTING:

Tuesday, November 22, 2016
Naval Flotilla Enters Atlantic Ocean

The Iranian Navy's 44th flotilla of warships has sailed around the African continent and entered the Atlantic Ocean, Navy Commander Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari announced. "For the first time, the Navy's 44th flotilla, comprised of the Bushehr logistic warship and the Alvand destroyer, has sailed around the African continent and arrived in the Atlantic Ocean,"

https://financialtribune.com/articles/national/54033/naval-flotilla-enters-atlantic-ocean

The same ships did a trip to Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, in 2014

The Navy's 30th fleet of warships, comprised of Alvand warship and Bushehr logistic warship docked in Iran's Southern port city of Bandar Abbas after successfully conducting a 100-day mission of providing safe passage for Iranian shipping lines in the Indian Ocean, the Gulf of Aden, the Red Sea and sailing through the equator and berthing in Sudanese ports, Tanzania's Dar al-Salam port and Oman's Salalah port.

http://kayhan.ir/en/news/3181/iranian-warships-return-home

Earlier that year:

04/14/14
Iran Cancels Navy Mission in Atlantic Close To US Borders

The Iranian Navy changed the mission of its 29th flotilla of warships and called it back home before the naval group could start its voyage in the Atlantic Ocean, the Navy commander said Sunday, adding that the country now plans to send another fleet to the Atlantic Ocean.

http://www.payvand.com/news/14/apr/1087.html

"Close to US Borders" in this context clearly has to be taken with significant amont of grains of salt.

As should this (from the same article)

In September 2011, Sayyari had announced that the country planned to move vessels into the Atlantic Ocean to start a naval buildup "near maritime borders of the United States".

"Like the arrogant powers that are present near our maritime borders, we will also have a powerful presence close to the American marine borders," Sayyari said.

Without a base in West Africa, how much nearer is Cape Town to US maritime borders than Bandar Abbas for the Iranian navy? Consider the distances

• from Bandar Abbas, Iran, to
  
  • Boston (MA) is 10631.04 km, to
    
  • Washington DC is 11303.76 km, and to
    
  • Key Largo (FL) is 12601.3 km
• from Cape Town, South Africa, to
  
  • Boston (MA) is 12345.66 km , to
    
  • Washington DC is 12616.86 km, and to
    
  • Key Largo (FL) is 12267.91 km
• from Safi, Morocco, to
  • Boston (MA) is 5481.98 km , to
    
  • Washington DC is 6076.2 km, and to
    
  • Key Largo (FL) is 6880.24 km

Also, consider that sailing from Bandar Abbas via Oman and Tanzania to Durban, South Africa is quite a different ballgame then sailing from Cape Town to the US East Coast.

See US Maritime Boundary details here:
https://noaa.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=c36ab47fb8764a99970d76b9474f38cf

All this happened while Iran has never American soil neither occupied American neighbors Canada and Mexico not conducted military coup in the USA to topple American Gov. ... Iran has never violated the USA territorial water and air space like what American have done in many cases .. Iran has never said that all options are on the table and so on ...
Abiding by international law is a good thing but it should be a 2 way street ,,,

Passing through the shipping lanes in Hormuz strait into the Persian Gulf puts one close to Iran's territorial waters, but not in them. The outbound lane is closer to Oman and farther from Iran. It is a bit different with the shipping lanes IN the Persian Gulf: both lanes are inside Iran's maritime boundaries (with few - if any - alternatives).

You can't violate what you can't reach. Which makes the above about Iran an easy thing to say... (what would the situation be if Iran WERE able to reach US maritime boundaries and air space? > pure speculation)

 

[VEVAK]

Your own picture just countered your point. There are only 2 narrow shipping lanes in between Larak and Oman. 1 for going into the PG, 1 for out. Iran is closest to the "in" route.

I never said they come in Iran's half, but they come close.

It's not a highway brother it's 50km across! & the in is not one way and the out another! If they stay 25km or more from Iranian territory none of this will happen!!!!! But they push on purpose & they get on the edge of Iranian territorial waters under the banner of international water on purposely!
Why they do it? It's clear, they wanna create tensions to increase international pressure on Iran! They have their Nuclear deal next they want their Missile deal! Iran knows exactly what happened to Saddam & Qadaffi so giving up our missiles is like signing a death warrant for Iran!

Millions of Iranians come to the streets of Iran to commemorate the passing of one of the founders of the Islamic Republic of Iran & CNN & Fox news in the U.S. don't show the millions that came out to their own ppl! they show no pictures of all the people that came out for a guy who without him we can honestly say this Revolution would have never happened!
Iranians loved him! Even U.S. presidents can't get that many people to come out for them! so it doesn't play to their narrative of Iranians hating their system and wanting a revolution!
Yes their are different parties in Iran and in fighting but at the end of the day Iranians ONLY come out for parties that are within the system & the only type of change Iranians want are changes that are within THIS system & THIS Government!
Retarded MKO traitors can't get anyone out! Deluded Pahlavi's & Shahi supporters can't get anyone out! So since it doesn't play into their deluded narrative they don't show it!

Despite the JCPOA they haven't stopped being Iran's enemy & it's clear the Nuclear Deal was just a tip of the iceberg they wanna weaken Iran economically, politically & militarily without lifting a hand. If Iran was a liberal western style democracy it would make no difference! What they can't tolerate is a politically & militarily powerful & independent Iran with a strong industry that doesn't take orders from them in a geographical location where a large portion of the worlds energy supply is located!