When an Iranian official this week laid out a list of demands to end the war started by the United States and Israel, he added an item that hadn’t been on Tehran’s list before: recognition of Iran’s sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz.
The narrow waterway through which a fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) ordinarily passes has emerged as the Islamic Republic’s most potent weapon. And it is now seeking to turn into both a source of potentially billions of dollars in annual revenue and a pressure point on the global economy.
Iran has long threatened to close the strait in case of an attack, but few expected it to follow through – or for it to prove so effective in disrupting global trade flows. The scale of the impact appears to have expanded Tehran’s ambitions, with the new demands suggesting it is seeking to turn that leverage into something more durable.
Iran should include demanding the release of all Epstein documents.
That might ultimatelly be good for America and Americans, so why would Iran ever do something like that?
I mean, if American was a society with humanitarian values were what’s happenned now with Trump was an exception, it would make sense, but historically the US has been in war most of its existence, of late most of it being in the Middle East causing the deaths of millions of civilians, and very few people in the US were actually against it as a question of principle and even now most are only against it because “American money”, “American lives” or “Gas prices in America” so it’s clearly not a society of good people who normally uphold good values and is just momentarilly under the control of evil people.
The US is not a society where most people think that innocent lives are sacred, be it at home or abroad.
Trump would happily throw us all at killbots before that happened
Iran should demand Trump himself be turned over to stand trial
Probably get better results taking Netanyahu, but they should really do both.
Seeing how well Iran did actually close and keep selectively closed the Strait of Hormuz it seems fair to give them the sovereignty.
Iran is on one side of the strait, Oman is on the other. Giving Iran sovereignty would mean taking away sovereignty from Oman. Countries are supposed to be able to control their own coastlines and territorial waters.
The strait is narrow enough that there is no buffer of international waters in the middle at its narrowest. Giving one country sovereignty of the whole strait would mean violating the the sovereignty of another. Not a fair proposition.
deleted by creator
By international treaty, in a maritime border were one country is in one side and a different one in another, like that, the border sits right smack in the middle, equidistant of both sides, so soverignty over that Straight is divided.
What Iran has at the moment is the power to limit what passes there, but Oman could have the exact same thing if they so chose, since Oman too could do the same thing - for exactly the same reason Oman cannot stop Iran from attacking ships there (it’s a lot harder to protect civilian ships in range of land-based artillery/drones than to attack them), Iran would not be able to stop Oman from doing exactly the same.
So if Iran tried to have actual sovereignty over the whole Straight (full control, not just the ability to stop traffic there), Oman could fuck them up by doing exactly the same thing that Iran is doing now - it’s a game that two can play.
It’s generally agreed to officially put the border (and assign sovereignty) right in the middle in a situation like that exactly because otherwise the country on the side which “lost” would start fucking things up in that channel for all users.
The only way for Iran to officially get sovereignty of the whole Straight would be to conquer and occupy the land on the other side, and I doubt Iran has the capability to do so.
How can sovereignity be shared?
It can’t, I thought. I was asking like, “Sovereignty can be shared?” Not like “Sovereignty can be shared?!”
There’s this clunky thing standing in the way of that, called international law.
The UAE or Oman could probably do that as well if they wanted to.
Not really. You basically have to be either a superpower or a pariah state to do something like this and not be immediately pummeled into oblivion.
They could just target any ships from or to Iranian ports or of nations which support Iran with artillery or drones.
It’s exactly because it’s so stupidly easy to attack civilian ships in a space like that whilst it’s very hard to defend against it that Iran is able to do so even whilst under attack by American and Israel, so the country on the other side could do the same thing and only target Iranian or Iran-related ships.
Two can play the “fuck the other side’s ship” game there.
Stockholm syndrome much?
This is the proposal that should be offered to Iran. Iran will be permitted to pursue its nuclear program as long as it’s for peaceful purposes. Iran will be strictly monitored for compliance. Any violation will result in invasion by the US, Europe, and any other nations willing to join in. If Iran agrees to the proposal, all sanctions will be immediately lifted. It’s unnecessary for Iran to have sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz. If sanctions are lifted, Iran will be making money from oil and other exports. Unlike Trump’s 15-point peace plan, mine is simple.
I can’t tell if you’re taking the piss at the agreement made under Obama or if you’re actually serious.
If my proposal resembles Obama’s that’s fine. Accept his. My desire is for peace.
Who do you think attacked first and, more importantly, why do you think Iran tried to get nukes in first place?
I would prefer a UN-style nuclear agency that builds and maintains power-generating facilities independent of geo politics.
Their goal should be to provide power anywhere that isn’t completely unstable and the receiving country has to amend their constitution to acknowledge that the power gets turned off if they fuck around.
Iirc two largest manufacturers of reactors are China and Russia. Plus you need to buy the fuel, with post-Soviet countries, especially Kazakhstan, being the largest exporters. Good luck with the independence from geopolitics.
Who decides who “fucks” around? If it’s for humanitarian purposes why not the power stays if there’s a human on the other end using it.
Innovative idea but who would pay for the reactors and remove the radioactive waste?
We already do things like this for other areas such as defense, healthcare, etc.
