I think you’re right…. and this inclines me to recall the Imperial German Navy’s campaign of raiders…which is essentially what the US would be. The response to the German raiders was several. Raiders were hunted and attacked by warships. Raiders were denied re-supply in ports, and interned if they entered neutral ports and stayed too long…I don’t remember the permitted period…24 hours?  Merchant ships were taken over as naval auxiliaries and equipped with hidden guns…decoys.  Some merchant ships were armed and carried naval personnel to defend the ship. One may think also of the early stages of both the Imperial submarine campaign and the later but similar WW2 nazi submarine campaign…these were also essentially “raiders”. In those periods the boat would surface and inspect ships that flew neutral flags…take “prisoners”.- actually rescued civilians, not POW’s….sink prohibited cargo…ie the ship… Because of radio however, the policy was abandoned.  Still, Lloyd’s register was carried on the subs, and neutral ships often were not sunk.

So let’s assume the USN “takes” a Chinese tanker… What will China do? Let’s assume that there are Chinese marines with MANPADs on the tanker and they shoot down a USN helicopter…take US lads prisoner, burn USN boats… what happens then?

AHH and I long ago anticipated a general war on commerce at sea, calling this “the tanker war”, though it would include more or less everything.

Evidently our Chinese and Russia Comrades also anticipated a war at sea – they’ve been frantically building their navies for years… The Imperialist method developed by the Europeans and taken over by the Americans has always, 500 years of so, depended on control of choke points…and MacKinder’s thesis seems to be running. We shall, I expect, see the war at sea and on land, as twice before….well the big stuff twice… lotsa little ones too.

Comrades Nima and Marandi chat — they discuss this as topic> Seyed M. Marandi: US Blockade on Iran Just Triggered Iran’s HARSHEST Response Yet

A corpse would lie with mouth agape…the image however is accurate…Jeff is alive, and so is the blackmail….

……..

Comrade Berletic.…….https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmHYS8oK-pg

Zone Baltic…Fehmarn Belt  [somebody claims that] “European countries have become very concerned about the constant presence of Russian warships near the German island of Fehmarn in the Baltic Sea, which is a strategic point in the Fehmarn Belt. Russian naval forces are stationed here — at the narrowest part of the Baltic Sea.

https://x.com/SprinterPress

(Ruski too might be “concerned” since the same Countries plan to make war on Russia…)

Island Fehmarn > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fehmarn

Nice Ruski boat video

https://x.com/i/status/2043095830169592178

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

Radio traffic zone Hormuz…see…https://htrs-special.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/RADIO-Traffic-Iran-to-US-Destroyer.mp4

[video src="https://htrs-special.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/RADIO-Traffic-Iran-to-US-Destroyer.mp4" /]

“I am ready to open fire on them without any warning”… Geewhiz! Very subtle!

Two thrilling titles….it seems that Comrades Berletic and Medhurst were about right…the tanker war begins in ernest… and two can play…so? How about those fat targets in CONUS? 

BREAKING: IRAN WAR – TRUMP DECLARES NAVAL BLOCKADE – Comrade Officer (ret) Davis

Seyed M. Marandi: Negotiations Collapsed – Return to War – chats with Comrade Diesen

see…

and