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

[Penguin]

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

so what if The soviet union would have a missile deployment in Cuba? That didn't give The U.S the right to block international waters for Russians ships going to Cuba, and threat the world with a very close possible nuclear war. The U.S didnt suppose they, the soviet union, had an interest in cuba?

The US never had a problem with USSR basing troops on Cuba per se. Putting tactical ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons there was a different thing. It was not Cuba that initiated that but Russia. So, in that sense, the comparison you make is a false one.

 

[Peaceful Civilian]

Imagine if it were turkey, he does straight shots . US destroyer just gave them warning shots which is right . U.S.A don't want tension in this region.

 

[AmirPatriot]

US ships are Hormuz traffic too.

US warships are not welcome.

And don't kid yourself into thinking there was no US presence in the Persian Gulf pre 1979.

Your nice long article is worthless. Pay attention. I didn't say there was no US presence pre-1979. I said there was no substantial US presence i.e at least 1 Aircraft carrier, several destroyers, cruisers, submarines.

There was no Mullah presence pre-1979

Lol sure. Khomeini popped out of thin air in 1979.

the comparison you make is a false one.

Not really. The US has had nukes in Turkey for decades. They had nukes on carriers in the Persian Gulf until 1992.

And I wouldn't be surprised if they had nuclear armed subs in the area.

 

[Penguin]

US warships are not welcome.

Regardless, you have no say over international strait passages.

Your nice long article is worthless. Pay attention. I didn't say there was no US presence pre-1979. I said there was no substantial US presence i.e at least 1 Aircraft carrier, several destroyers, cruisers, submarines.

You pay attention. As the report states, up to 1970, it was the Brits fullfilling the role that the US subsequently took over as the B ritish empire declined and some of their argreements ran out. The Brits certainly did maintain a substantial precence. So, there is continuity in that sense, it is just that while the US post ww2 relied on the Brits to police (with USN remain just 'over the horizon'), it eventually had to pick up the slack left by British decline an d withdrawal: effectively (in WW2 terms) 'allied control' over the area remained.
See http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137447241_2#page-2

Not really. The US has had nukes in Turkey for decades. They had nukes on carriers in the Persian Gulf until 1992.

Yes, really, as the comparison dealt with US/Cuba, not Turkey/Russia. Either way, the issue was having a BASE, not having NUCLEAR WEAPON. And there is a big difference between the two.

And I wouldn't be surprised if they had nuclear armed subs in the area.

All still in the context of USSR versus US and mutually assured destruction / nuclear race, which is not the same situation as having a base in the Gulf. Still false comparison.

 

[AmirPatriot]

Regardless, you have no say over international strait passages.

Oh, I personally don't, you're right. That doesn't mean Iran won't continue to make the US unwelcome.

As the report states, up to 1970, it was the Brits fullfilling the role that the US subsequently took over as the B ritish empire declined and some of their argreements ran out. The Brits certainly did maintain a substantial precence. So, there is continuity in that sense, it is just that while the US post ww2 relied on the Brits to police (with USN remain just 'over the horizon'), it eventually had to pick up the slack left by British decline an d withdrawal: effectively (in WW2 terms) 'allied control' over the area remained.

Brits =/= Americans. The Brits were only all over the world because of their lingering and declining colonialism, for example their protectorates in the Arab world like Bahrain.

My point was that US presence in the Persian Gulf is nothing innocent and is entirely to do with threatening Iran. This only happened after Iran escaped their hegemony in 1979. The Brits, as I will continue to tell you, had nothing to do with it.

not Turkey/Russia

I didn't mantion Russia. You know, Turkey borders Iran too.

Either way, the issue was having a BASE, not having NUCLEAR WEAPON.

Bases can contain Nuclear Weapons.

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.

All still in the context of USSR versus US and mutually assured destruction / nuclear race

Please find me an official source which confirms that no US nuclear weapons are pointed at Iran. Otherwise, don't pretend like nukes have their target's name written on them.

I think you are overly objectifying this discussion.

 

[mohsen]

Regardless, you have no say over international strait passages.

Yes, according to international laws we have every right to block the passages which are considered against our security, U.S warships is an instance.
we have the right to adopt measures to satisfy our security even if it's moving along 1 meter of U.S ships.

Yes, really, as the comparison dealt with US/Cuba, not Turkey/Russia. Either way, the issue was having a BASE, not having NUCLEAR WEAPON. And there is a big difference between the two.

U.S wants to have a base to threaten Iran, Soviet wanted a base to threaten the U.S.
Americans have no say.

 

[Uhuhu]

The US never had a problem with USSR basing troops on Cuba per se. Putting tactical ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons there was a different thing. It was not Cuba that initiated that but Russia. So, in that sense, the comparison you make is a false one.

there is no difference, and in any case(putting a bullet there or nuclear weapon), Regard to the international laws ,what U.S did was illegal. cuba was an independent country with its own territory. it didnt give the U.S the right to block the ports of cuba in international waters.

second. American forces in persian gulf are not only few troops. its whole fifth fleet of The US navy and many fighters and bombers squadrons included of many tactical missiles.

Third, its not the first time we face double standard in global issues by US and its allies.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Still means Iran has to abide by it. Irrespectve of US. There is enough additional, older international law outside of unclos which applies anyway.

well ,Iran agreed that treaty but with some clauses .

 

[Penguin]

I think you are overly objectifying this discussion.

 

[WhyCry]

Iran is not a retarded suicidal country.

You mean to say pakistan is?

 

[Hassan Guy]

Pakistan ≠ Iran

 

[Penguin]

there is no difference, and in any case(putting a bullet there or nuclear weapon), Regard to the international laws ,what U.S did was illegal. cuba was an independent country with its own territory. it didnt give the U.S the right to block the ports of cuba in international waters.

second. American forces in persian gulf are not only few troops. its whole fifth fleet of The US navy and many fighters and bombers squadrons included of many tactical missiles.

Third, its not the first time we face double standard in global issues by US and its allies.

Lets assume you'are right, for the sake of argument. You basically say, because there is a precedent it is ok for Iran (or any other nation) to do the same. Imagine running your society that way....

The Fifth Fleet of the United States Navy is responsible for naval forces in the Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Arabian Sea, and parts of the Indian Ocean

Capiche?

 

[Khafee]

Lol sure. Khomeini popped out of thin air in 1979.

Not thin air, but Paris.

 

[Penguin]

Yes, according to international laws we have every right to block the passages which are considered against our security, U.S warships is an instance.
we have the right to adopt measures to satisfy our security even if it's moving along 1 meter of U.S ships.

Under which maritime laws exactly?


Article38


Right of transit passage

1. In straits referred to in article 37, all ships and aircraft enjoy the right of transit passage, which shall not be impeded; except that, if the strait is formed by an island of a State bordering the strait and its mainland, transit passage shall not apply if there exists seaward of the island a route through the high seas or through an exclusive economic zone of similar convenience with respect to navigational and hydrographical characteristics.

2. Transit passage means the exercise in accordance with this Part of the freedom of navigation and overflight solely for the purpose of continuous and expeditious transit of the strait between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone. However, the requirement of continuous and expeditious transit does not preclude passage through the strait for the purpose of entering, leaving or returning from a State bordering the strait, subject to the conditions of entry to that State.

3. Any activity which is not an exercise of the right of transit passage through a strait remains subject to the other applicable provisions of this Convention.


Article39


Duties of ships and aircraft during transit passage

1. Ships and aircraft, while exercising the right of transit passage, shall:

(a) proceed without delay through or over the strait;

(b) refrain from any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of States bordering the strait, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;

(c) refrain from any activities other than those incident to their normal modes of continuous and expeditious transit unless rendered necessary by force majeure or by distress;

(d) comply with other relevant provisions of this Part.

http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part3.htm

How exactly did this particular destroyer on this particular passage not comply with article 39?

U.S wants to have a base to threaten Iran, Soviet wanted a base to threaten the U.S. Americans have no say.

Sure. Or to from which to defend its own interests on the opposite bank.

 

[mohsen]

Under which maritime laws exactly?


Article38


Right of transit passage

1. In straits referred to in article 37, all ships and aircraft enjoy the right of transit passage, which shall not be impeded; except that, if the strait is formed by an island of a State bordering the strait and its mainland, transit passage shall not apply if there exists seaward of the island a route through the high seas or through an exclusive economic zone of similar convenience with respect to navigational and hydrographical characteristics.

2. Transit passage means the exercise in accordance with this Part of the freedom of navigation and overflight solely for the purpose of continuous and expeditious transit of the strait between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone. However, the requirement of continuous and expeditious transit does not preclude passage through the strait for the purpose of entering, leaving or returning from a State bordering the strait, subject to the conditions of entry to that State.

3. Any activity which is not an exercise of the right of transit passage through a strait remains subject to the other applicable provisions of this Convention.


Article39


Duties of ships and aircraft during transit passage

1. Ships and aircraft, while exercising the right of transit passage, shall:

(a) proceed without delay through or over the strait;

(b) refrain from any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of States bordering the strait, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;

(c) refrain from any activities other than those incident to their normal modes of continuous and expeditious transit unless rendered necessary by force majeure or by distress;

(d) comply with other relevant provisions of this Part.

http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part3.htm

How exactly did this particular destroyer on this particular passage not comply with article 39?


Sure. Or to from which to defend its own interests on the opposite bank.

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