The author asserts there is no legal way to force a toll as:
"Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Strait of Hormuz is an international strait where all ships enjoy a right of transit passage that coastal states cannot suspend."
Except neither Iran nor the USA has ratified the Law of the Sea, which makes this weaker than the author presents. If the US wants to rely on "customary law binds non-ratifiers" to hold Iran to transit passage, that same logic applies to the US's own non-ratification. You can't invoke UNCLOS as binding custom on Iran while treating US non-ratification as irrelevant.
The author asserts there is no practical way to force a toll as:
"The scale of the waterway makes it far more difficult to physically stop, inspect and control vessels that refuse to pay a toll. Imposing a toll is one thing; enforcing it against unwilling ships is another entirely."
Except they don't. The Iranians don't need to inspect every ship. In fact, spot-checking is plenty, since they just need to threaten to destroy ships. International shipping insurers will force compliance on Iran's behalf as underwriters price the risk and shipowners route around it voluntarily.
I'm not a fan of the situation and certainly don't condone Iranian support for terror organizations, but let's not pretend they lack a legal and enforceable way to disrupt shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. In fact, they've established/proposed a route through the Strait between the Qeshm and Larak islands that gives them even greater control over traffic.
> since they just need to threaten to destroy ships.
Here, you are assuming that those threatened will do nothing. Why? Even when India, for example, had some issues with piracy, they started sending their warships to patrol the route. That's the point the author makes - it will be difficult because if Iran is challenged, it needs to have the political will and military power to fight those who challenge it. You can't fight the whole world.
So even the maritime super power of the USA is reluctant to enter the Strait given that the southern coast of Iran is heavily fortified and features Qeshm Island AKA "The Unsinkable Aircraft Carrier" with it's underground "Missile City".
The USA has not risked an Aircraft Carrier transit through the Strait in like 6 years. They will risk a Destroyer every now and then such as during Project Freedom but that effort was not really a success. The Destroyers being more of a "I dare you to do something deterrent" than an overwhelming military presence.
India lacks the ability to force their way through the Strait to escort tankers laden with oil. India has sent warships to the area but they (like the American Aircraft Carriers) remain safely outside the Strait.
You assert: "if Iran is challenged, it needs to have the political will and military power to fight those who challenge it. You can't fight the whole world."
I would have thought by any objective read of the situation that Iran has clearly demonstrated both the will and the means to control the Strait. The war has taught Iran that they hold veto power over global trade through the Strait.
The recent 60 day framework essentially affirms this as if Iran returns to pre-war status quo the USA has agreed to $300 Billion aid and the release of frozen assets (though mostly not at the expense of the US tax payer). The individual Gulf States now want to negotiate directly with Iran rather than in concert with the USA and Israel. These are all tacit admissions that Iran holds veto power over transit through the Strait. At least until the USA gets through the mid-term elections after which they might be more inclined to return to attempts to break Iran's hold on the Straight.
The US is a rich, developed country that is not fully dependent on the middle-east for oil. India is one the top importers of oil in the world and it is a developing country. Like for Iran, the stakes are very different for India vis the west or even China.
And note that the point the author was making was that India (for example) won't be alone in challenging Iran. It would soon become -a coalition of countries against Iran. Poor and developing countries, whose economy may be impacted would just be as much against the toll as the richer nations (as they have more to lose). And while some countries may be loathe to invoke a military challenge, they can retaliate economically - if everything Iran imports faces a Tariff, because of the toll, the revenue from the toll becomes meaningless for Iran's economy while costing it diplomatic goodwill of others too.
Iran's plan is ambitious. But it will be very challenging to pull it off without upsetting a lot of countries. Ideally, I think Iran should only impose a toll on countries that don't have good ties with Iran or don't trade with it. It should also exempt poorer nations, keeping in tune with its Islamic ethos.
The usual view of the international community is that everyone is bound by customary international law. This would remain the case even if the US or others violated it; the hypocrisy of other states wouldn't release any state from its obligations.
One can object to this notion of customary international law, but if we're going to say that laws of the sea don't matter here, then we must also give up the legal notion that the strait is Iran's (and Oman's) territorial waters. There's no consistent legal framework under which the strait is Iran's territorial waters, but not an international waterway.
There's the practical reality that Iran can extort ships anyway, even with no legal pretense. But then it's essentially just piracy, and anyone with a few boats or mines can do that, unless they're stopped by force.
> This would remain the case even if the US or others violated it;
Yeah, but laws are useless if it can't be enforced right? Trump claimed the US has first right's on Venezuela's oil. Apart from Venezuela, which other country has challenged that and promised to help them fight the Americans?
This article makes no sense. First, it claims that the Strait is in Omani water, then says it's both Iran's and Oman's. (Oman has a tiny bit of coastline in the area; Iran is enormous.)
But most absurd is the idea that Iran could not enforce tolls simply because there is no narrow toll gate. Did the author not watch the present conflict? Iran doesn't need a narrow entryway to tell who is in the Strait, nor do they need a complicated setup to simply shoot at ships from their very long and high coastline.
If insurers believe the ships they cover will be targets, those ships won't be transiting. It's quite simple.
IMO, Iran controlling traffic and imposing fees in the strait was originally only in the MOU to give them something to back down on in negotiations. The Strait is Iran's nuclear option - it can't be used without prudence and thought to the fallout, because Iran can't afford to risk losing the moral high ground when they finally have the upper hand. The US and Israel want to keep the not-a-ceasefire "going" until Iran responds forcefully enough that they can sell it to a naive and ignorant American public as a casus belli. Iran seems to be waiting for a TACO in the face of international pressure, but I'm not optimistic at all that anyone will be willing to stop Israel, and the Iran government would lose all credibility if they backed down, so more war is likely.
The author asserts there is no legal way to force a toll as:
"Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Strait of Hormuz is an international strait where all ships enjoy a right of transit passage that coastal states cannot suspend."
Except neither Iran nor the USA has ratified the Law of the Sea, which makes this weaker than the author presents. If the US wants to rely on "customary law binds non-ratifiers" to hold Iran to transit passage, that same logic applies to the US's own non-ratification. You can't invoke UNCLOS as binding custom on Iran while treating US non-ratification as irrelevant.
The author asserts there is no practical way to force a toll as:
"The scale of the waterway makes it far more difficult to physically stop, inspect and control vessels that refuse to pay a toll. Imposing a toll is one thing; enforcing it against unwilling ships is another entirely."
Except they don't. The Iranians don't need to inspect every ship. In fact, spot-checking is plenty, since they just need to threaten to destroy ships. International shipping insurers will force compliance on Iran's behalf as underwriters price the risk and shipowners route around it voluntarily.
I'm not a fan of the situation and certainly don't condone Iranian support for terror organizations, but let's not pretend they lack a legal and enforceable way to disrupt shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. In fact, they've established/proposed a route through the Strait between the Qeshm and Larak islands that gives them even greater control over traffic.
> since they just need to threaten to destroy ships.
Here, you are assuming that those threatened will do nothing. Why? Even when India, for example, had some issues with piracy, they started sending their warships to patrol the route. That's the point the author makes - it will be difficult because if Iran is challenged, it needs to have the political will and military power to fight those who challenge it. You can't fight the whole world.
So even the maritime super power of the USA is reluctant to enter the Strait given that the southern coast of Iran is heavily fortified and features Qeshm Island AKA "The Unsinkable Aircraft Carrier" with it's underground "Missile City".
The USA has not risked an Aircraft Carrier transit through the Strait in like 6 years. They will risk a Destroyer every now and then such as during Project Freedom but that effort was not really a success. The Destroyers being more of a "I dare you to do something deterrent" than an overwhelming military presence.
India lacks the ability to force their way through the Strait to escort tankers laden with oil. India has sent warships to the area but they (like the American Aircraft Carriers) remain safely outside the Strait.
You assert: "if Iran is challenged, it needs to have the political will and military power to fight those who challenge it. You can't fight the whole world."
I would have thought by any objective read of the situation that Iran has clearly demonstrated both the will and the means to control the Strait. The war has taught Iran that they hold veto power over global trade through the Strait.
The recent 60 day framework essentially affirms this as if Iran returns to pre-war status quo the USA has agreed to $300 Billion aid and the release of frozen assets (though mostly not at the expense of the US tax payer). The individual Gulf States now want to negotiate directly with Iran rather than in concert with the USA and Israel. These are all tacit admissions that Iran holds veto power over transit through the Strait. At least until the USA gets through the mid-term elections after which they might be more inclined to return to attempts to break Iran's hold on the Straight.
The US is a rich, developed country that is not fully dependent on the middle-east for oil. India is one the top importers of oil in the world and it is a developing country. Like for Iran, the stakes are very different for India vis the west or even China.
And note that the point the author was making was that India (for example) won't be alone in challenging Iran. It would soon become -a coalition of countries against Iran. Poor and developing countries, whose economy may be impacted would just be as much against the toll as the richer nations (as they have more to lose). And while some countries may be loathe to invoke a military challenge, they can retaliate economically - if everything Iran imports faces a Tariff, because of the toll, the revenue from the toll becomes meaningless for Iran's economy while costing it diplomatic goodwill of others too.
Iran's plan is ambitious. But it will be very challenging to pull it off without upsetting a lot of countries. Ideally, I think Iran should only impose a toll on countries that don't have good ties with Iran or don't trade with it. It should also exempt poorer nations, keeping in tune with its Islamic ethos.
[flagged]
The usual view of the international community is that everyone is bound by customary international law. This would remain the case even if the US or others violated it; the hypocrisy of other states wouldn't release any state from its obligations.
One can object to this notion of customary international law, but if we're going to say that laws of the sea don't matter here, then we must also give up the legal notion that the strait is Iran's (and Oman's) territorial waters. There's no consistent legal framework under which the strait is Iran's territorial waters, but not an international waterway.
There's the practical reality that Iran can extort ships anyway, even with no legal pretense. But then it's essentially just piracy, and anyone with a few boats or mines can do that, unless they're stopped by force.
> This would remain the case even if the US or others violated it;
Yeah, but laws are useless if it can't be enforced right? Trump claimed the US has first right's on Venezuela's oil. Apart from Venezuela, which other country has challenged that and promised to help them fight the Americans?
This article makes no sense. First, it claims that the Strait is in Omani water, then says it's both Iran's and Oman's. (Oman has a tiny bit of coastline in the area; Iran is enormous.)
But most absurd is the idea that Iran could not enforce tolls simply because there is no narrow toll gate. Did the author not watch the present conflict? Iran doesn't need a narrow entryway to tell who is in the Strait, nor do they need a complicated setup to simply shoot at ships from their very long and high coastline.
If insurers believe the ships they cover will be targets, those ships won't be transiting. It's quite simple.
IMO, Iran controlling traffic and imposing fees in the strait was originally only in the MOU to give them something to back down on in negotiations. The Strait is Iran's nuclear option - it can't be used without prudence and thought to the fallout, because Iran can't afford to risk losing the moral high ground when they finally have the upper hand. The US and Israel want to keep the not-a-ceasefire "going" until Iran responds forcefully enough that they can sell it to a naive and ignorant American public as a casus belli. Iran seems to be waiting for a TACO in the face of international pressure, but I'm not optimistic at all that anyone will be willing to stop Israel, and the Iran government would lose all credibility if they backed down, so more war is likely.