Iran imposes mandatory insurance on ships transiting Strait of Hormuz, with fees likely to follow (www.lloydslist.com)
from stumu415@lemmy.zip to world@lemmy.world on 19 Jun 16:13
https://lemmy.zip/post/66437269

#world

threaded - newest

trailee@sh.itjust.works on 19 Jun 16:51 collapse

I have yet to see anyone describe why transit through the strait should morally be left unencumbered by Iran and Oman. The strait is only about 35 miles wide but international waters don’t start until 230 statute miles offshore. Does the US not assert authority over waters between Florida and Cuba (110 miles) or Florida and Bahamas (125 miles)?

marcos@lemmy.world on 19 Jun 17:23 next collapse

The treaty that mentions those 230 miles also says those waters must be freely navigable. Yes, even the ones between Florida and Cuba.

But also those treaties are written by agreements made mostly at the end of wars. I think the current one is from the Brazil vs. France very heated¹ one. That’s just how those things evolve.

But again, there isn’t any clear way for Iran and Oman to keep those waters closed at peace time. They almost certainly won’t start wars with any country that wants to move ships there.

1 - In the Summer, near Fortaleza, it should be near 40°C there!

trailee@sh.itjust.works on 19 Jun 17:45 collapse

So the US should welcome, say, Russian (or perhaps Iranian) boats heading to Cuba or Mexico, regularly coming about 15 miles offshore of Miami without buying US-approved insurance policies?

ruuster13@lemmy.zip on 19 Jun 17:34 collapse

Why shouldn’t a natural strait be left morally unencumbered by Iran and Oman?

If the question is truly about morality, why would the US be part of it?

trailee@sh.itjust.works on 19 Jun 17:58 collapse

I suppose it’s not really about morality but more about rules-for-thee-but-not-for-me. I don’t think the US would be cool with Russian or Iranian ships coming very close to Miami on their way to Cuba or Mexico, especially without US-approved insurance or maintenance records.

Hormuz is a natural strait and leads to a natural gulf, but they are entirely within territorial water boundaries of several tightly packed countries. I can see many reasonable justifications for countries to assert control of ship traffic very close to their land borders. Smuggling, pollution, risk of catastrophe, etc.

Of course there are huge financial interests in returning to the status quo ante, and media mostly takes for granted that it’s the way things should be. I just want an introductory explainer of why, and how reciprocal that is to other navigational norms worldwide.