Iran threatens to block straights of Hormuz - Again

I've read interpretations of Chapter VII. I usually fact-check two independent sources before making a statement. One was an interpretation in the Guardian by Iran's ambassador to the UN:

“For the first time in the history of the United Nations, the United States – a permanent member of the security council with veto power – is engaging in penalising nations across the entire world; not for violating a security council resolution, rather, for abiding by it,” Khoshroo wrote.
“The US withdrawal from JCPOA and re-imposition of its sanctions is a serious breach of its legal obligations under the United Nations Charter, which entails its international responsibility. The international community must act in the face of this international intimidation and affront towards the international legal order.”

This is from a legal analysis from the Columbia Journal of International Affairs:

"This article seeks to explore the legal ramifications of such a move by the US government, arguing that this is not a simple matter of decision-making by the executive branch and requires the consent of the US Congress, due to the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which essentially turned the subject into a joint executive-legislative issue. Perhaps more importantly, the JCPOA is an international agreement that is legally binding under international law and any decision to renege on obligations under the agreement."

https://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/online-articles/trump-and-iran-nuclear-accord-legal-hurdles

This is the UN interpretation of the resolution:

http://www.un.org/en/sc/2231/

However that being said upon further research there is some disagreement over the legal interpretation and some scholars support your position so I will consider your point.

 

I already explained it

Treaties require consent of the senate just like federal judges

Obama cannot place judges on the SC by EO and he cant make treaties by EO either

 

In a tit for tat response kind of thing - Iran blocking the straits ... the world blocking Iranian ships (or part of the world anyway) such a thing is possible.

The problem is that for this minor irritant to Iran - they can create a major irritant to the global oil market.

I think that if Iran blocked the straits - military action would soon follow.

 

Agreed - I was speaking in a more general sense

 

We wouldn't let them block the Straits.....nor would the Saud. Nor Bahrain. Nor Oman. Nor the UAE. Nor Qatar.





All that airpower and our ships alone says they know better.

 

That only works if you ignore the US Constition

 

Iran would be crazy to start a war before they have nukes

 

We will never know exact details but at least 3000 Russian troops were lost in Vietnam and Soviet pilots were flying in Korea against American forces. They flew direct combat missions under the PLAAF and under the markings of the KPAAF. In addition to direct (direct but limited) combat roles, the Soviets also had troops and training/support/logistics arms in Vietnam and in Korea. Especially around SAM sites and Air Force bases where fighters like the MiG-15 were being introduced.

BTW, we were in a conventional war with China after they attacked our forces in Korea. The war was limited in scope but it was conventional. IMO, one of the biggest mistakes we ever made was not ending the Korean War on favorable terms and not throwing China out of Korea altogether.

 

You did not sign 2231 alone. There were 7 other nations who are still following the resolution.

America is the outlier. What does your constitution have to do with international law?

 

Really, children starved to death by sanctions and wedding parties massacred in drone strikes will be relieved to hear this.

 

Other nations can do as they please

Or pound sand for all I care

We have a constitution

 

Well no ... not really. There is little we can do to stop Iran from blocking the Straits to begin with. What we can do is go in after the fact and re-open them.

What about in the case of a partial block which Iran has threatened. Restricting only certain traffic.

In addition, Iran would not likely have to actually "physically" block anything. They could just threaten.

Things can get complicated.

 

I agree that iran might be able to reduce traffic through the straights by sinking some of their own ships

But I suspect they could not block it entirely without a full scale war which they would lose

 

Sure they will be complicated. Threatening alone wont do it. The Saud and all those countries would give Iran to think about something besides losing most of their military forces. Those airfields are strategically located.


Which counts nothing from the US.


Looks at how many times they have threatened to do so. They know they can't back up their word.

 

Very true. Threats alone have to be backed up by force and this is one of the reasons we had a CBG (Carrier Battle Group) in the region for some many years. Once you put a task force out there, you can stop Iran or other hostile forces from blocking the straits or react quickly to any attacks.

Iran's military, especially their Navy, is no match for the United States.

 

We might have to escort ships through the Strait. If they send ships out to block traffic, we might have to sink them.

 

Nor do they have much of an Air Force.....the Israelis flew all over Iran with the F35 and the Iranians didn't even know they were there.

So much for the Russian S-300 and S-400 antiair.

 

Promise?

 

Yea, it's pretty much a joke. A single USAF Wing of F-22's could achieve Air Superiority. I think they have roughly 42 F-4 Phantom IIs, 24 F-5 fighters, 20 MiG-29s, 17 F-7 fighters, 23 Su-24 Fencers, 9 ex-Iraqi Mirage F-1 fighters and a handful of old F-14's.

That really isn't much to counter a US threat and barely enough to counter a threat by other countries in the region. Certainly not the Saudi's or Israel. Since they have so many sanctions against their country, getting parts is a real issue. They also lack the finances to support and buy new fighters to upgrade their military capabilities.

 

Clearly the Iranians didn't think things thru. First off they are caught up in a proxy war with Yemen with the Saud. Then they are about to lose some of their Hezbollah troops and missiles due to Israel. Now the Euros have taken them into the Security Council for firing off a ballistic missile this past Saturday.

Now they threaten to close the Straits.....its not looking good for them.

Message to the Iranians.....never try to be more than what you are. Which in the EA Sports. You're not even in the game.

 

Yeah they can't even control their Air Space. Whats going to really freak them out is when they discover Russia and China wont be coming to their aid.

 

You consider the 4th largest army in the world, which has been engaged for at least 8 years of war with Iran, to not be a "real" enemy? Whatever.

I bring up engagements with small arms and large hands because they are every bit a part of today's combat skill sets that our guys train with/for. The enemy, whomever they might be, cannot beat us in the Air, Sea or Land. And soon, will not be able to beat us in Space.

Guerilla warfare will definitely be a part of our response should any foreign invader step foot on our shores.

In Vietnam the F4 was initially not equipped with guns due to people who think like you do because "it has missiles, dog fights are obsolete."

No, no they are not.

 

lol!

 

That is a possibility. If we were to sink a few Iranian ships then what ? Our ships are sitting ducks going through the narrow area of the straits. Obviously such an attack would provide a big response but -this is how such things get started.

 

How many Viet Cong with bows and arrows brought down B52's?
Vietnam in particular was a Proxy War against Communist China
and the Soviet Union.
By themselves the North Vietnamese wouldn't have lasted more
than a few months.

As an aside. The longer it takes for the next war, the more
uncertain that war will be as technology has changed. I suspect
that aircraft carriers and maybe even tanks might be obsolete.