When the US violates the law of the sea in the South America, why not. Everybody complains but understands.
What happens at that point? Can shipping companies manage to pay both US and Iran? Will companies and nations complain to the international court, and will UN step in and prevent either side from doing this? As noted the US did this already in south America and nothing happened, and Iran has already started extracting a toll.
I would not work on a ship going anywhere near that area, and I wonder if investors are that willing to put money on that kind of venture. That leaves nations that are dependent on exports to put military personal on ships (like what Russia is doing), but will that be enough to discourage either US or Iran?
They do that already. US destroyers have shot round into the engine room of many Iranian oil tankers. Iranian oil is not getting trough.
1) no one owns the strait, Iran has never owned it, its international waters.
2) Who says they keep it at $2 million? Due to the location they could say anything and people would pay it, that would have a massive impact in worlds economy. And any plans to bypass the strait would get heavy attention from Iran and their friends - because no one wants to lose their cash cow.
3) if Iran is allowed to do that, everyone starts to do that - you think oil is expansive now? Good luck when every country with similar bottlenecks nearby starts their tolls. Again, these are international waters.
As for the US breaking law of the sea in South America, I assume you mean blowing up boats? Has anyone proven that they have been civilians and that they have lied about the targets?
"However, the strait is governed by international law under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This grants international vessels and aircraft the right of transit passage, meaning coastal states cannot suspend this movement, provided ships transit continuously and expeditiously for the sole purpose of normal travel."
Which makes the blockade and asking for tolls illegal under the international law, though pretty sure most countries do not care about international law at all.
Very bold to use the UN as a source to defend US' actions. The same UN that Pedophile Trump denounced as a "feckless institution"?
US doesn't own the middle east either, yet it routinely acts like it does.
If they hadn't been tricked by Israel to attack Iran, none of this would've happened.
Much cheaper than participating in another endless war.
Yes, this may mean an end to international orders and more countries will take opportunities to charge tolls. But the US-led world order is fading away anyway no matter what.
The least worst option.
Let's see first if this ends as an endless war - although you could make the argument that there has been a "war" between those two nations for about 47 years, which yes seems like an endless war :/
> The least worst option.
Personally I disagree with that conclusion.
The rest of the world has another option. No outcome is good, but it's at least better than being dragged into this pointless war.
(not relevant question)
The United States is not legally allowed to use "shoot-to-kill" force or launch deadly military strikes on drug-trafficking boats in international waters. '
The Baseline Rule: Lethal force is restricted to self-defense or the defense of others if the suspects present an immediate threat of death or serious physical harm.
Disabling Fire: To stop a fleeing boat, law enforcement is permitted to use "disabling fire" (such as firing at the engines or using boat-trapping nets), but they must explicitly minimize the risk of injury or death to the crew. Carrying illegal narcotics alone does not carry a death penalty, nor does it justify lethal force.
The US has killed over 160 people illegally using airstrikes. so far.