Iranians at it again

[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 August

Believe what you want, you will anyways, but remember this is the Carter White House you're talking about here. He could barely order our own people into harms way at Desert One to rescue our hostages let alone order another country to start a huge war with it's neighbor.

An interesting viewpoint.
Now forgive me if my memory is fuzzy but wasn't the order to cancel the messed up operation made by your president at the request of his military commanders?
So are you saying that your president was so hawkish that he had difficulty cancelling the operation after the military had said it was somewhat screwed at Desert One?

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...

The key to the matter is the use of the term "innocent passage".
By using the term they admit that they recognise the legitimate territorial claim and the soveriegn authority of the state in question.
Innocent passage does not apply to international waters, it only applies to territorial waters.

[Aktungbby]

Rule 1: to every solution there is a problem; Currently there is the USS Truman solution to any foreseeable problem

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."

Said positions to be declared by Orla Trees:

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.

Well Done!

Originally Posted by Aktungbby

Rule 1: to every solution there is a problem; Currently there is the USS Truman solution to any foreseeable problem

The problem with your solution to the problem is that after spending a lot of money handing Iraq to the Iranians you now find yourselves with them as allies in your fight against the Islamic Reformation upstarts in Syria.
It isn't a great solution to a problem to be rattling your sabre at your new bestest buddies.
Instead it would appear to be a very silly approach to a problem.

Said positions to be declared by Orla Trees:

Said position lodged with the UN as a binding treaty signed by both Iran and Oman

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by orla trees

The problem with your solution to the problem is that after spending a lot of money handing Iraq to the Iranians you now find yourselves with them as allies in your fight against the Islamic Reformation upstarts in Syria.
It isn't a great solution to a problem to be rattling your sabre at your new bestest buddies.
Instead it would appear to be a very silly approach to a problem.


Said position lodged with the UN as a binding treaty signed by both Iran and Oman

I view the situation with circumcision ....It's all about the economy! I$I$ will do as good a job as Japan, Germany, Vietnam and the former Soviet Union and then China if any one's around in 4 years to partake of the 'tree of prosperity'- talk about Halacha BBY!
(reread my sig)

[August]

Originally Posted by orla trees

An interesting viewpoint.
Now forgive me if my memory is fuzzy but wasn't the order to cancel the messed up operation made by your president at the request of his military commanders?
So are you saying that your president was so hawkish that he had difficulty cancelling the operation after the military had said it was somewhat screwed at Desert One?

That's quite a strawman you've built new guy but sorry no, I am not saying that at all. Hawkishness is certainly not the only reason for someone needing to be prompted into action and if you are familiar with "my" president then you'd know what those reasons might be. Hint, they're the same reasons that the operation fell apart in the first place.

Edit: BTW if you or anyone else is interested in this subject I found a rather well written article from July of 1980 that gives a good account of the incident. http://spectator.org/articles/34807/why-rescue-failed

Originally Posted by August

That's quite a strawman you've built new guy but sorry no, I am not saying that at all. Hawkishness is certainly not the only reason for someone needing to be prompted into action and if you are familiar with "my" president then you'd know what those reasons might be. Hint, they're the same reasons that the operation fell apart in the first place.

Edit: BTW if you or anyone else is interested in this subject I found a rather well written article from July of 1980 that gives a good account of the incident. http://spectator.org/articles/34807/why-rescue-failed

I see. So your president was extremely reluctant to order a mission which your military was most probably incapable of achieving.
So should he be praised for his reluctance in ordering a near imposible mission, or praised for attempting the long shot, or praised for scrubbing the mission when it fell apart?

[August]

Originally Posted by orla trees

I see. So your president was extremely reluctant to order a mission which your military was most probably incapable of achieving.
So should he be praised for his reluctance in ordering a near imposible mission, or praised for attempting the long shot, or praised for scrubbing the mission when it fell apart?

Obviously you didn't read the article that I linked so...

Originally Posted by August

Obviously you didn't read the article that I linked so...

Do you know the meaning of the word "obviously"?
I am seriously struggling to see your point.
It strikes me that you will just condemn your president regardless of the actions he took or the outcome.
Is it perhaps a party political issue you have? As in he is simply of the wrong party for you.
Your article states that the problems with the military capabilities available date from the era of the Vietnam fiasco. That puts the problem back to a decade before that President took office,
So how is he to blame for the long running problem stemming from a failed adventure launched on false information?

But I do like the soviet comparrison in your article. Not really relevant though is it, as firstly there were already soviet troops on the ground, they also had local allies on the ground in large numbers, and most importantly there was no evacuation or rescue planned with the airborne assault element of the invasion.
So in essence it is an entirely irrelevant attempt at a comparrison.
But as a bonus it was written before the Soviet adventure ended in the forgone conclusion of a humiliating military and poltical defeat.

So in conclusion it remains as, does your initial post have any validity at all?
or is just ya boo party political posturing?