Iran prepares bill to bar foreign warships from Persian Gulf

Discussion in 'West Asia & Africa' started by Neil, Jan 5, 2012.

  1. Neil

    Neil Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,610
    Likes Received:
    1,946
    Location:
    India
    [​IMG]

    TEHRAN — Iran’s parliament said Wednesday that it was preparing a bill that would prohibit all foreign warships from entering the Persian Gulf unless they received permission from the Iranian navy.
    The bill, disclosed by the semiofficial Fars News Agency, surfaced a day after Iran’s armed forces commander warned a U.S. nuclear-powered aircraft carrier not to return to the gulf, remarks that rattled commodities markets and helped drive up oil prices.

    The proposed legislation suggested that at least some Iranian officials are serious about trying to stop the U.S. Navy from entering the oil-rich gulf waters. Iranian analysts said that the bill probably would not have been introduced if it were not supported by higher authorities.
    “If the military vessels and warships of any country want to pass via the Strait of Hormuz without coordination and permission of Iran’s navy forces, they should be stopped by the Iranian armed forces,” Fars quoted lawmaker Nader Qazipour as saying in explaining the bill. He noted that Iran regards the strait as part of its territorial waters and said the bill would be presented to leaders in parliament next week.
    Iranian Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi restated Iran’s position that “transnational forces” have no place in the region. Vahidi also said that Iran is willing to organize joint military drills with neighboring countries, Fars reported Wednesday.
    The news agency, which has ties to Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard Corps, asserted that the carrier USS John C. Stennis, which steamed out of the Persian Gulf last week, had escaped while being “chased by Iranian warships.”
    The United States has dismissed as overblown rhetoric Iran’s threats to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz, the narrow entrance to the Persian Gulf, in retaliation for Western sanctions over the country’s uranium-enrichment program.
    Iran’s increasingly bellicose tone has coincided with a currency crisis that has forced the government to intervene to prop up the ailing rial. Helping to drive the rial to record lows was U.S. legislation signed Saturday by President Obama that includes a provision for unilateral sanctions against the Central Bank of Iran.
    Iran responded by injecting an additional $200 million into the country’s currency markets Wednesday, Fars reported. Although the rial’s rate appeared to stabilize, people involved in trading dollars said they were hanging on to their foreign currency for now.
    Many Iranians were trying to buy dollars anyway, but sellers were hard to find.
    “Nobody is selling their dollars,” said one exchange office representative who did not want to be identified. “The current rate is artificial.”
    The crisis spurred rumors that the job of the governor of the Central Bank of Iran, Mahmoud Bahmani, was in jeopardy. According to Fars, he has asked for more authority to clamp down on “speculation” against the rial.


    Iran prepares bill to bar foreign warships from Persian Gulf - The Washington Post



     
  2.  
  3. W.G.Ewald

    W.G.Ewald Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2 Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    14,140
    Likes Received:
    8,529
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
    And will this claim ever be resolved by an agreement with other nations? I think not.
     
  4. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    2,976
    Interesting. Now will the Iranians pass the bill? And in case they do pass it (to save face) will they implement it themselves..?:boom:
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2012
  5. rock127

    rock127 Maulana Rockullah Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    8,943
    Likes Received:
    10,315
    Location:
    India
  6. Neil

    Neil Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,610
    Likes Received:
    1,946
    Location:
    India
    even chinese wont support such a bill...they too are heavily dependent on oil from arabs...iran is turning into another pakistan...no work so parliament passes BS bills....
     
  7. Oracle

    Oracle New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    8,120
    Likes Received:
    1,541
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    What about International waters in the Persian Gulf? Somebody please explain if they are in the know-how.
     
  8. W.G.Ewald

    W.G.Ewald Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2 Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    14,140
    Likes Received:
    8,529
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
  9. W.G.Ewald

    W.G.Ewald Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2 Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    14,140
    Likes Received:
    8,529
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
  10. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    2,976
    Actually under international law a country's sovereignty in the sea extends only 12NM from its coastline (territorial waters). It is this territory that it has complete control in, but also under international law there's a concept called right to "innocent passage." In other words foreign ships should be allowed to pass through the territorial waters of the coastal countries if their passage is considered "innocent." The coastal country however may determine what constitute "innocent" or "not innocent" passage and may take actions to protect their sovereignty. But as we can see from the map hereunder attached Iran's territorial waters does not encompass the whole of the Persian Gulf. Legally, it cannot bar foreign warships from passing or entering on parts of the Persian Gulf that are not considered its territorial waters.

    [​IMG]


    Even in the Straight of Hormuz wherein at some points the territorial waters of Iran intersect with that of Oman it is legally doubtful that it can enforce its will on foreign ships passing in the middle, granting they are given permission by Oman to pass through. And on practical terms, even if Iran insists that ships cannot pass in the middle of the Straight without its permission (or they will sink them) these ships can simply pass safely within the 12NM territorial waters of Oman. If Iran still sinks these ships then I believe it will lose all political and diplomatic covers from China and Russia.
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2012
    W.G.Ewald and Neil like this.
  11. Armand2REP

    Armand2REP CHINI EXPERT Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,397
    Likes Received:
    2,314
    We already got a frigate exercising with the Emirates. We have to get permission from Iran? :laugh:

    If they are stupid enough to try anything we will send their tugboat navy to the bottom of the Arabian Gulf.
     
  12. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,163
    Location:
    EST, USA
    Now Iran is acting like PRC claiming the whole of South China Sea.

    I would however welcome a treaty of all the states bordering Persian Gulf keeping all non-Persian Gulf warships out of it. In that event, it will be justified.

    Alternatively, however, what if there is a problem of piracy there?
     
  13. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    2,976

    The other coastal countries of that Gulf will definitely not agree to that kind of treaty. It's in their interest that Western ships are based there for they know that as smaller countries without Western protection they'll simply be bullied by Iran.

    Piracy? Pirates won't stand a chance with the amount of naval firepower based there. Even the navies of SA and the smaller Gulf states are enough to sanitise the area of pirates.
     
  14. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    2,976
  15. SpArK

    SpArK SORCERER Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2010
    Messages:
    2,093
    Likes Received:
    1,104
    Location:
    KINGDOM OF TRAVANCORE
    Bill of suicide.:tsk:
     
  16. Tshering22

    Tshering22 Sikkimese Saber Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    Messages:
    4,404
    Likes Received:
    2,783
    Location:
    Gangtok, Sikkim, India
    What is wrong with Iran? Have they gone potty or what? They are seriously inviting doom for themselves from oil sheikhs and NATO. They're thinking that by pushing the oil card forward, they can test the entire planet. Even we don't claim absolute sovereignty to Indian Ocean though it has been ours for a long time.

    Sometimes I wonder Iran has this itch to copy China everywhere. From their military doctrine to their propaganda, everything seems like a reflection of CCP masterplan.
     
  17. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    2,976

    Both side are engaged in brinkmanship. On the side of Iran's Mullahs, they don't have a choice, they need to have a nuclear weapon to ensure what happened to Gaddafi does not happen to them (they're desperately clinging to power). In other words their's is an existential question. ON the part of the West and neighboring Gulf states on the other hand is the need to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons as this will seriously destabilise the region through nuclear arms race, increased proxy actions against Israel (nuclear armed Iran will be emboldened more because it will no longer feel threatened) and the Arab enemies of the Iranians. The long term stability of the region and the World (because World economy by and large is connected with the ME) is foremost on the West's mind. Of course for the US there's a domestic agenda as local politics plays a role in that the Jewish lobby does not like a nuclear armed Iran (they have a point).

    Iran is calculating that the West's resolved is only matched by the extent of the shocks that their economies can take from increasing oil prices. Iran is also calculating that they can weather the potentially crippling sanctions through special arrangements with China and India, by getting just enough revenues to sustain them through the whole thing. So Iran is upping the ante by increased belligerent actions hoping to dramatically raise the tensions in order to spike oil prices even more, making their irresistible offers to the 2 countries even more savory.

    The West on the other hand think that the economic tool is the last thing in their arsenal before they resort to war. The latter certainly is one thing that they are not willing to do at the moment as it will set the region and their bourses on fire. The West are calculating that the Syrian regime will fall and this will isolate and pressure Iran even more to negotiate their way out of these sanctions. Ultimately, what is pushing the Americans to engage in brinkmanship (aside from domestic politics) is the feeling that time is running out and the Iranians are already close to developing a nuclear device (a nuclear test would be the signature).

    So whose side is going to win? Fingers crossed. But if the matter is purely military then no doubt the West and its ME allies are going to win the contest hands down. But in the current economy war India and China are playing very large roles. Their participations will help shape the battle.

    IN my case, I believe that Iran should not be allowed to lay its hands on nuclear weapons. It's enough that we already have a crazy Islamic country (Pakistan) with weapons of doom, adding another one to the list is madness and suicidal...:scared2:
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2012
  18. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    2,976
    The toppling of Gaddafi that the French were so proud of may have played a bigger role in the rising tensions. To the Iranian Mullahs this may have been the rubicon. They realised after Gaddafi was publicly deposed through the help of NATO and neighboring countries tha unless they have a nuclear deterrence then the same thing could happen to them. I am speculating that this is one of the major reasons that the Americans were initially hesitating to join in the efforts against Gaddafi for they knew that the Iranians Mullahs will be watching nervously. A successful removal of Gaddafi would mean the abandonment of a negotiated settlement for Iran since obviously an insecure Iranian Mullahs will not give up their nuclear dream.

    When Gaddafi was removed it became clear to the Americans that they have to go on with their master plan against Iran for time is running out. They have to remove Iran's closest and most important ally Syria out of the equation and then pressure Iran to the brink hoping that the Mullahs will accept their fate... This is no easy task.

    One important question is, did our friends the French consider Iran when they so enthusiastically set Lybia on fire (I hope not just to showcase their commercial failure, Rafale)? And now that the region is on the brink are they going to spearhead the effort against Iran or they're going to hide under Uncle's skirt, as usual (later on to come out to be holier than thou...)?
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2012

Share This Page