Iranians at it again

[eddie]

Seem's like they love seeing how far they can go. But doing a live fire exercise near the USS Truman is pushing it! A missile passed with 1,500 yards of it! They didn't announce they were having this so called live fire test. Keep it up Iran, one of these days they will bite off more then they can chew!

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-...ranian-n487536

[Buddahaid]

USN should act like this was the gnat it was and ignore it. That will piss off the Iranians more than anything else. No response.

[eddie]

I'm pretty sure the Truman just kept going without batting an eye. But a simple mistake made by someone could lead to something bigger, and don't think the Iranians would like the response.

[Oberon]

Eh, we've got enough problems without starting something with the Iranians, let them play. It's more likely that Greece and Turkey will start something that Iran will start something with the US, especially while it's still doing its thing with Saudi Arabia.

[HW3]

They know our present leader will not do anything except apologize for the USS Truman being there, and give them whatever they want to make up for it.

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by HW3

They know our present leader will not do anything except apologize for the USS Truman being there, and give them whatever they want to make up for it.

Oh nuts.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by eddie

Seem's like they love seeing how far they can go. But doing a live fire exercise near the USS Truman is pushing it! A missile passed with 1,500 yards of it! They didn't announce they were having this so called live fire test. Keep it up Iran, one of these days they will bite off more then they can chew!

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-...ranian-n487536

Nah There's gotta be an air umbrella over the carrier in those waters (There is a 3 mile territorial limit in the Strait; not 12 as is customary) and the Iranians still welllll recall our live fire exercise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
and a little background: http://www.virginia.edu/colp/pdf/kraska-legal-vortex.pdf Plus we've been known to play rough too: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/navy-exercise/ IMHO: situation normal: but after the USS COLE: everyone verrrryy 'bright-eyed and bushy-tailed'...

Originally Posted by Aktungbby

[COLOR=orange]Nah There's gotta be an air umbrella over the carrier in those waters (There is a 3 mile territorial limit in the Strait; not 12 as is customary)]

Dreadfully sorry but that is complete ballderdash.
Please keep your claims in the realm of reality.
It does your arguement no service if it is based on falsehood.
Thank you.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by orla trees

Dreadfully sorry but that is complete ballderdash.
Please keep your claims in the realm of reality.
It does your arguement no service if it is based on falsehood.
Thank you.

First of all, Welcome to SUBSIM.

May I ask for a source for your claim? Not because I don't believe what you say, but as so we would not make that mistake again. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Dowly

First of all, Welcome to SUBSIM.

May I ask for a source for your claim? Not because I don't believe what you say, but as so we would not make that mistake again. Thanks.

That would be under laws of the sea, look at any map of the straights.
You can find the line that delieates Omani waters and Iranian waters. There is no gap between the two. there is no "international waters" and there is no "three mile limit" as both countries are signatories to the law which sets it at twelve miles.
America never signed, which puts it league with places like Kazachstan, but that is irrelevant as it is not American waters and the US/USSR declaration on territorial waters issued in 1989 recognises the territorial waters as defined by the signatories of the 1982 law which defines the 12 mile limit.

[Oberon]

Out to 12 nautical miles (22 kilometres; 14 miles) from the baseline, the coastal state is free to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource. Vessels were given the right of innocent passage through any territorial waters, with strategic straits allowing the passage of military craft as transit passage, in that naval vessels are allowed to maintain postures that would be illegal in territorial waters. "Innocent passage" is defined by the convention as passing through waters in an expeditious and continuous manner, which is not "prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security" of the coastal state. Fishing, polluting, weapons practice, and spying are not "innocent", and submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag. Nations can also temporarily suspend innocent passage in specific areas of their territorial seas, if doing so is essential for the protection of its security.

orla has a point there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...Law_of_the_Sea

[Aktungbby]

orla trees!

Originally Posted by orla trees

Dreadfully sorry but that is complete ballderdash.
Please keep your claims in the realm of reality.
It does your arguement no service if it is based on falsehood.
Thank you.

Originally Posted by Dowly

First of all, Welcome to SUBSIM.

May I ask for a source for your claim? Not because I don't believe what you say, but as so we would not make that mistake again. Thanks.

Actually balderdash is what its all about: relying on my source, possibly outdated : http://www.virginia.edu/colp/pdf/kraska-legal-vortex.pdf Neither Iran nor the United States are signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS, governing the Straits of Hormuz. Which is similar to the Montreux Convention for the Bosphorus controlled by Turkey generally aginst Russia. God knows what the Brits do when Russians are in the English Channel basically; since Iran is NOT signatory to the UNCLOS and is under no compunctoion to recognize legal regimes, it does NOT enjoy a twelve mile territorial sea limit, as claimed for example by neighboring Oman, and may claim only the 'historic' 3 nautical mile territorial limit (hey a few extra feet) thereby. Iran has signed, but not ratified, the 1958 Territorial Sea Convention. The US, not signatory, claims "longstanding practice and 'opinio juris'; innocent passage is a longstanding right of 'customary' international laws. Customary transit argument is considered weaker than innocent passage right...China for example, when passing too close to the US Aleutians claims 'innocent passage' while denying it to everyone in the South China Sea's Spratley Islands... so everyone plays this game IMHO. With regard to Oman's twelve mile claim: are there even twelve miles to claim??!! My link describes the situation as a 'knife fight in a phone booth' EDIT: I see HMS Oberon has slipped in also whilst I was composing my 'balderdash' response!

Iran's (Islamic Republic) addendums to UNCLOS treaty
Upon signature (10 December 1982):
Interpretative declaration on the subject of straits
"In accordance with article 310 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran seizes the opportunity at this solemn moment of signing the Convention, to place on the records its "understanding" in relation to certain provisions of the Convention. The main objective for submitting these declarations is the avoidance of eventual future interpretation of the following articles in a manner incompatible with the original intention and previous positions or in disharmony with national laws and regulations of the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is, . . . , the understanding of the Islamic Republic of Iran that:
1) Notwithstanding the intended character of the Convention being one of general application and of law making nature, certain of its provisions are merely product of quid pro quo which do not necessarily purport to codify the existing customs or established usage (practice) regarded as having an obligatory character. Therefore, it seems natural and in harmony with article 34 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that only states parties to the Law of the Sea Convention shall be entitled to benefit from the contractual rights created therein.
The above considerations pertain specifically (but not exclusively) to the following:
-- The right of Transit passage through straits used for international navigation (Part III, Section 2, article 38).
-- The notion of "Exclusive Economic Zone" (Part V). - All matters regarding the International Seabed Area and the Concept of "Common Heritage of mankind" (Part XI).
2) In the light of customary international law, the provisions of article 21, read in association with article 19 (on the Meaning of Innocent Passage) and article 25 (on the Rights of Protection of the Coastal States), recognize (though implicitly) the rights of the Coastal States to take measures to safeguard their security interests including the adoption of laws and regulations regarding, inter alia , the requirements of prior authorization for warships willing to exercise the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea.
3) The right referred to in article 125 regarding access to and from the sea and freedom of transit of Land-locked States is one which is derived from mutual agreement of States concerned based on the principle of reciprocity.
4) The provisions of article 70, regarding "Right of States with Special Geographical Characteristics" are without prejudice to the exclusive right of the Coastal States of enclosed and semi-enclosed maritime regions (such as the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman) with large population predominantly dependent upon relatively poor stocks of living resources of the same regions.
5) Islets situated in enclosed and semi-enclosed seas which potentially can sustain human habitation or economic life of their own, but due to climatic conditions, resource restriction or other limitations, have not yet been put to development, fall within the provisions of paragraph 2 of article 121 concerning "Regime of Islands", and have, therefore, full effect in boundary delimitation of various maritime zones of the interested Coastal States.
Furthermore, with regard to "Compulsory Procedures Entailing Binding Decisions" the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, while fully endorsing the Concept of settlement of all international disputes by peaceful means, and recognizing the necessity and desirability of settling, in an atmosphere of mutual understanding and cooperation, issues relating to the interpretation and application of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, at this time will not pronounce on the choice of procedures pursuant to articles 287 and 298 and reserves its positions to be declared in due time."

Originally Posted by Aktungbby

orla trees!



[COLOR=orange] Neither Iran nor the United States are signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS,...... basically; since Iran is NOT signatory to the UNCLOS and is under no compunctoion to recognize legal regimes,........
thereby. Iran has signed

Make your mind up
Are they a signed up or not?
Hint ( the answer is yes they signed)
If you want the full run down this is from the document both countriues submitted to the UN as the agreed maritime boundaries.
Point (1) is the most western point which is the intersection of the geodetic line drawn between point (0) having the coordinates of 55°42'15" E 26° 14' 45" N and point (2) having the coordinates of 55°47' 45" E 26° 16' 35" N with the lateral offshore boundary line between Oman and Ras Al Khaimah.
Long. E Lat. N Point (2) 55 47 45 26 16 35 Point (3) 55 52 15 26 18 50 Point (4) 56 06 45 26 28 40 Point (5) 56 08 35 26 31 05 Point (6) 56 10 25 26 32 50 Point (7) 56 14 30 26 35 25 Point (8) 56 16 30 26 35 35 Point (9) 56 19 40 26 37 00 W. Intersect of Larac 12m. Point (10) 56 33 00 26 42 15 E. Intersect of Larac 12m. Point (11) 56 41 00 26 44 15 Point (12) 56 44 00 26 41 35 Point (13) 56 45 15 26 39 40 Point (14) 56 47 45 26 35 15 Point (15) 56 47 30 26 25 15 Point (16) 56 48 05 26 22 00 Point (17) 56 47 50 26 16 30 Point (18) 56 48 00 26 11 35 Point (19) 56 50 15 26 03 05 Point (20) 56 49 50 25 58 05 Point (21) 56 51 30 25 45 20
Point (22) is the most southern point located at the intersection of the geodetic demarcation line drawn from point (21) (specified above) at an azimuth angle of 190° 00' 00" and of the lateral offshore boundary line between Oman and Sharjah.



If you wish to dispue any of those points on the map or find any gap in the established legal line then feel free to do so.
If however you are unable to dispute the legality of the stated and registered territorial position of both states then it comes back to the initial statement, which was "balderdash".

[Oberon]

HMS Oberon reporting.

Iran did sign the convention of UNCLOS, but has not ratified it:

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/conventi...on%20signature

There are a number of concerns it had, mostly more to do with its neighbours than with the likes of the US, back in the aftermath of the Iran/Iraq war. To be honest, if the US signed the UNCLOS it might actually be to its advantage when it comes to legal challenges in the Straits of Hormuz.

Oh, and in regards to Russkie ships passing through the Channel, it happens annually, I think even the Admiral Kuznetsov went through last year, probably to be near a port in case it broke down. It's nothing major, we usually just kick out a patrol boat, it comes over and says
Zdravstvuyte, tracks them in the waters to make sure they don't collide with a merchant vessel (which is a bigger threat than hitting a rogue missile whilst transitting the Channel) and then points them towards Murmansk or Syria when they come out the other side.

Now with Gibraltar...that's a bit more complicated...