Which in turn is also against international law (international law would let them retaliate against israel & usa. It doesn't let them target neutral shipping [edit: to clarify i mean neutral shipping going to neutral ports]).

Of course international law is not worth the paper its written on.

▲

ceejayoz 2 hours ago | parent [-]

No, defensive blockades are explicitly permitted under international law, including neutral parties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade

> Blockades restrict the trading rights of neutrals, who must submit for inspection for contraband, which the blockading power may define narrowly or broadly, sometimes including food and medicine.

▲

bawolff an hour ago | parent | next [-]

To clarify, i meant shipping to neutral ports (article 99 of San Remo: "A blockade must not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States" https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/san-remo-manu... ). Oman seems neutral in all this but nonetheless affected.

They would be allowed to blockade neutral ships going to enemy ports (e.g. Israel) subject to a bunch of rules but that doesn't seem to be what they are doing.

I dont even think Iran is claiming this is a blockade. They are claiming its part of its territorial waters, and they are claiming that they dont recognize the UNCLOS which would give vessels transit rights (but at the same time they are claiming they recognize the part of UNCLOS that allows claiming 12 miles out as territorial waters). At least that is what i got from https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-legality-of-irans-closure-of-th...

▲

ceejayoz an hour ago | parent [-]

There are no neutral ports there. Every other country past the strait is a US ally with US military bases hosted on their territory.

Oman is before the strait begins.

	▲	bawolff 27 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> There are no neutral ports there. Every other country past the strait is a US ally with US military bases hosted on their territory. I dont think hosting a US base would necessarily make them non neutral unless that base was used offensively. According to international law, Iran would also have to justify their exercise of self-defense rights was porportional, which even if you accept hosting a us base made that state non neutral, i think it would be difficult to justify their response against states simply hosting a us base met the porportionality requirements of int law. However even if they were enemy states, Iran would have to declare all of these countries as being under blockade, which they haven't as far as i am aware. > Oman is before the strait begins. How is the Oman port of Khasab before the strait begins?

▲

mpyne 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Did you miss the part about contraband? You quoted it, after all.

Firing on neutral shipping is not the same as intercepting it and inspecting it for war materiel or other contraband. Preventing shipping from reaching or leaving Kuwaiti ports is not the same as inspecting it for war materiel or other contraband.

	▲	ceejayoz 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Iran has been requiring shipping to submit to inspection and tolls via an adjusted route through the strait. And they can certainly deem oil contraband if they are allowed to do food and medicine, as quoted. Ships that don’t stop get fired upon. That’s what happens in a blockade. Kuwait is a US ally and hosts American military bases. Stopping shipping to there is very clearly legitimate.