Remarking “Iran’s resistance to an unrestricted transit regime is not recent. It has been framed for decades as a question of source, reciprocity, and coastal security.”

Learned legal brief…see> Iran’s Strait of Hormuz Closure Under International Law @ https://www.diplomacyandlaw.com/post/iran-s-strait-of-hormuz-closure-under-international-law

also from X ( https://x.com/RezaNasri1) as follows>

Iran’s legal position regarding the Strait of Hormuz rests on a firm and
multi-layered foundation in international law that has been consistently
articulated, formally recorded, and never relinquished.
First, the applicable treaty framework does not support the imposition of
the “transit passage” regime on Iran. The UNCLOS introduced transit
passage as a novel legal construct, granting expansive rights—including
overflight and submerged navigation—to foreign military assets.
However, Iran never ratified UNCLOS and explicitly rejected this regime
upon signature. Under general principles of treaty law, a state cannot be
bound by provisions of a treaty it has not ratified, particularly where it
has expressly objected to those provisions at the time of signature.
This position is reinforced by the doctrine of the persistent objector.
Even if one assumes, arguendo, that transit passage has evolved into
customary international law, Iran has consistently and openly rejected
its applicability. As such, it is not bound by that rule.
Second, in the absence of a universally binding transit passage regime,
the governing law reverts to earlier treaty law and customary principles,
most notably the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the
Contiguous Zone. Both Iran and key user states such as the United
States are not parties to UNCLOS, creating a legal vacuum in which
reliance on earlier treaty regimes is not only appropriate but necessary.
Under this framework, the right of passage through territorial seas is not
unlimited. It is conditioned on innocent passage, a well-established rule
allowing coastal states to regulate navigation to protect their security
and public order. Crucially, innocent passage excludes activities that
threaten the coastal state, including military operations, intelligence
gathering, and acts connected to hostile conduct.
Third, the geographic reality of the Strait of Hormuz strengthens Iran’s
legal position. The navigable channels lie entirely within the overlapping
territorial seas of Iran and Oman. This is not a high seas corridor but a
maritime space subject to coastal sovereignty, albeit qualified by
navigational rights. That sovereignty carries with it the right to adopt and
enforce laws necessary to safeguard national security.
Fourth, even under UNCLOS itself, the regime of non-suspendable
innocent passage remains a legally recognized alternative in certain
straits. This regime is more restrictive than transit passage and explicitly
allows the coastal state to take necessary steps to prevent passage that
is not innocent. Iran’s interpretation is therefore not a legal aberration,
but a plausible reading grounded in existing law.
Fifth, and most critically in the present context, the law of armed conflict
and the UN Charter fundamentally alter the legal landscape. Following
an unlawful use of force against it, Iran is entitled to invoke its inherent
right of self-defense. In such circumstances, the legal characterization
of passage cannot be divorced from the realities of hostilities. Vessels
and aircraft associated with belligerent states—or facilitating military
operations—cannot claim protected navigational rights while
simultaneously contributing to acts of aggression.
International law has never required a state to permit its own territorial
sea to be used as a conduit for hostile operations. On the contrary, the
right of self-defense permits proportionate measures to prevent such.

Finally, the conduct of other states further undermines any claim that
Iran’s position is exceptional. The United States itself is not a party to
UNCLOS yet selectively invokes its provisions as customary law when
convenient.
4:06 AM · Apr 6, 2026

ende

As night follows day, China rolls…and maybe rocks…we’ll see just how brave the corn fed lads are..https://x.com/osintPk/status/2043753763224334654?s=20

It is said> China is aggressively challenging the American naval blockade. The People’s Liberation Army Navy just deployed a heavily armed task force to the Gulf of Oman. Beijing explicitly stated they will not allow Washington to dictate their global energy security. Chinese destroyers are preparing to actively escort their own mega-tankers right to the edge of the US kill box. A massive, direct standoff between American and Chinese naval assets is developing just outside the Strait.

I suppose it’s true. Escorts. Probably convoys. Round eye plans fubar, unless they wanna real fight. But it does occur to me that the escorts will have to escort all the way home…and at anytime a torpedo or sub-launched rocket attack is possible…nazis have pretty good submarines…so it’s possible that we shall have a submarine attack, and possibly a submarine sunk…and a massive oil spill…and/or the escort attacked and possibly sunk…and attack by nazi airplanes is a jolly option as well! Welcome to tanker war, or as they used to say in the old days…materialschlacht or Battle of Materials