31–40 of 57 posts
By "control" Iran doesn't mean they will operate or maintain these cables. They mean "pay up, or we'll destroy these cables when we feel like it". Modern day piracy.
>> Modern day piracy. "Israel seizes Gaza aid ships in international waters" - https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-begins-inte...
By "control" Iran doesn't mean they will operate or maintain these cables. They mean "pay up, or we'll destroy these cables when we feel like it". Modern day piracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand this legal position: the UN security council, which is both the judge, the appelate court, the supreme court and the enforcement mechanism of maritime law, has publicly declared they won't do anything about it. In any other legal situation, if the supreme court says it's OK, there's nothing to be done. There's a word for that: legal. As in whatever happens is legal, even if everyone kills each othe…
> the UN security council, which is both the judge, the appelate court, the supreme court and the enforcement mechanism of maritime law, has publicly declared they won't do anything about it. In any other legal situation, if the supreme court says it's OK, there's nothing to be done. There's a word for that: legal. As in whatever happens is legal, even if everyone kills each other. You are rhetorically clever but ana…
Oh and it's pretty revealing which situations you think are worthy of law violation and which ones aren't (e.g. as per usual Boucha and anything relating to Russia's, or Iran, or offensive Palestinian actions aren't mentioned. It "almost seems" the argument you're making is that law only serves to make your favorite political viewpoint come true, and not for anything else. Funny in a way, since it exposes your hypocrisy: that was exactly the point I was making. Well, with "you" being a person who actually decides, as opposed to you)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sources other than project flower?
When I first learned that Iran-Israel used to have friendly relations for decades, I was shocked. Genuinely surprised. Here's the relevant part of the wiki [0]: After the establishment of the State of Israel in May 1948, Israel and Iran maintained close ties. Iran was the second Muslim-majority country to recognize Israel as a sovereign state after Turkey. Israel viewed Iran as a natural ally as a non-Arab power on t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I first learned that Iran-Israel used to have friendly relations for decades, I was shocked. Genuinely surprised. Here's the relevant part of the wiki [0]: After the establishment of the State of Israel in May 1948, Israel and Iran maintained close ties. Iran was the second Muslim-majority country to recognize Israel as a sovereign state after Turkey. Israel viewed Iran as a natural ally as a non-Arab power on t…
You know that the Iran of then is almost completely unrelated to the Iran of now culturally, politically and even religiously due to... err... “foreign intervention”, right?
The tens of billions of dollars Iran invests into fighting Israel are (in my opinion) much better spent investing into developing the Iranian people and economy. Spending billions of dollars funding proxy wars, fighting a pointless forever war against Israel, pursuing nuclear weapons, and firing drones and missiles at your neighbors is a foolish foreign policy. Iran is asking for trouble.
If Iran had a different foreign policy, this current conflict would never have happened. Iran's situation was entirely avoidable.
[0] https://gamaan.org/2025/11/05/12-day-war-survey-english/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the UN security council, which is both the judge, the appelate court, the supreme court and the enforcement mechanism of maritime law, has publicly declared they won't do anything about it. In any other legal situation, if the supreme court says it's OK, there's nothing to be done. There's a word for that: legal. As in whatever happens is legal, even if everyone kills each other. You are rhetorically clever but ana…
Can I just point you to the first line of Wikipedia's definition of law? Law is what's enforced, not the rules by themselves. Oh and it's pretty revealing which situations you think are worthy of law violation and which ones aren't (e.g. as per usual Boucha and anything relating to Russia's, or Iran, or offensive Palestinian actions aren't mentioned. It "almost seems" the argument you're making is that law only serve…
Within my circle of friends (generally those who are in Europe), I have been trying explain this distinction whenever it’s brought up that “US violates international law”. Be it Greenland, Iran, Israel…whatever…if your international law’s enforcement arm (The US) will not enforce on itself, then whatever the US does or decides to do is legal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Iran has not ratified UNCLOS, and Oman has ratified it but then negated the implied right of transit passage in domestic law - they only recognise innocent passage. So the Strait has no clear legal status. In theory since Iran didn't ratify UNCLOS they can only claim 3nm of territorial water, but they claim 12nm anyhow. The USA insists on the right of transit passage, but itself isn't even a signatory to UNCLOS so th…
... and do you think that's a reasonable position to take? If these treaties are not in force, a lot of countries cannot trade freely internationally. These days all countries are dependent on free international trade, but for obvious reasons it goes double for desert countries like the ones behind the strait of Hormuz, even without considering oil. Geography allows a number of countries like Iran, but also Spain, In…
I’m sorry but it ended when the US started to threaten Denmark with invasion. That genie isn’t going back into the bottle.
Are there better sources to this than WioNews?