Iran has the legal right to close the Strait of Hormuz

A- All of the late Imam Khomeini’s statements and adopted positions reveal that he instructed using a “first strike” strategy in the challenge with arrogant powers, and argued that whenever an enemy prepares itself for an attack, whether military or economic, with the claimed purpose of invading the rights of a nation or its national sovereignty and goes beyond the empty threats and emotional rants and propaganda, the most effective solution is to begin the first strike, not hesitating to defend against the attack. Here some excerpts from the adopted positions by the Imam are given to illustrate the matter:

In recalling a memory of Shahid Modarres, the Imam refers to the pleading of some rural people beaten by the mercenaries of a Khan, and Modarres wanted to assist them in complaining against the Khan and his mercenaries, saying: “Beat them so that they complain of you, do not be beaten to complain.” [Imam’s Book, Vol. 8 P. 138].

In the last years of the imposed war, after the Iraqi military-- in spite of the financial, political and military support of the US and Europe-- had been paralyzed, the US announced, of course with the pretext of providing maritime security in the Persian Gulf and facilitating oil exports, that it sent its warships, not concealing the fact that they headed to the region to support the Iraqi army. Informed about this issue, some of the wartime authorities devised a plan to defend against a possible US attack and delivered it to the Imam for any expedient amendments. “If it is up to me”, the Imam said, “I’d target any US warship entering the Persian Gulf with missiles.”

After the publication of the obscene book “The Satanic Verses”, an introduction to subsequent offenses against Islam and the Holy Prophet (PBUH), the Imam issued his famous historical religious verdict that the assassination of Salman Rushdie was a religious obligation and whoever was killed in doing so was a martyr. It is beating the snake’s head with a stone right after its exit from the hole.

Such examples can also be seen in the statements of the Supreme Leader: the order to resume the activities of the UCF factory of Isfahan after the London meeting, later proved to be suspended for a wasted opportunity and what deprived Iran from peaceful nuclear energy, and also the resumption of all suspended nuclear activities and their extension, his ignoring the consequent threats of the US and its allies-- regrettably faced with the self-deprecation of Iranian authorities, etc.

B- It is noteworthy to give some of statistics as factual proof:

1- The Strait of Hormuz is the only waterway for the eight Persian Gulf neighbor countries;

2- On average every ten minutes a giant ship passes through the waterway;

3- More than 40 percent of oil requirements of countries is provided from the Persian Gulf;

4- The export of nearly 90 percent of the Persian Gulf’s oil is promoted through the strait, as the ocean liners carrying oil can find no passages but that of Hormuz;

5- Weapons purchased by the Persian Gulf countries and weapons of European countries are transferred to destinations through the Strait; and

6- The US EIA has predicted that the volume of exports through the Hormuz Strait will increase up to 30-35 million barrels per day by 2020.

Preparing the full list of factors making the Strait the most important and most strategic waterway of the world will take a long time.

C- The desperation of the US and its allies in the face of the regional Islamic revolutions, the subsequent fall of the puppet dictators, the exceptional financial and economic crisis, the ”Occupy Wall Street “ anti-capitalism movement, the accelerated fall of Israel on a dropping arc, and the realization of the US and European strategists that the long wave of the current world movements have taken Islamic Iran as the model, all and all have made them devise continued plots against Iran; the latest example is the oil boycott against Iran introduced during recent weeks in the joint strategic negotiations between the US and the EU.

It is also noteworthy that recent reports show the enemy’s fear about the fragile consequences of boycotting Iranian oil for the US, the EU and other industrial allies of the West; consequently the mentioned project has been halted in the US Congress after the approval of the Senate and hushed in the EU ministry of foreign affairs in December, and subsequently the recent meeting of the EU authorities in Brussels, but the enemies should know that they do not have all the pieces of the checkerboard and Iran, through referring to Geneva Convention of 1958 and that of Jamaica 1982, whose subject is the legal system of the international waterways and the passage right of ships, is entitled and able to close the Strait to all the oil tankers, even ships carrying commercial or military goods, if it is deprived of exporting its oil. However, in the illustrated situation, it is not reasonable to open the Strait in Iranian territorial waters for exporting oil to the recognized archenemies of Iran.

D- Geneva Convention 1958 (Art. 14-23) and Jamaica Convention 1982 (Art. 17-37) deal with coastal waters and the right of ship passage, some of which are argued in the following:

1-      Art. 14 of Geneva Convention 1958 reads: “ships of all States, whether coastal or not, shall enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea.”

2-      In Para. 4, it is cited: “Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State”.

3-      Para. 1, Art. 16 states:” The coastal State may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent”.

4-      Para. 3, Art. 16 stipulates: “the coastal State may, without discrimination amongst foreign ships, suspend temporarily in specified areas of its territorial sea the innocent passage of foreign ships if such suspension is essential for the protection of its security”.

5-      Art. 17-23, The Jamaica Convention of 1982 repeats the same content of Geneva Convention with minor changes.

E- First, only ships are entitled to pass through the Strait which are recognized as innocent for the national security, good order, welfare and rights and based on the two conventions-- recognition of this innocence is given to the costal country, here Iran. If the import of Iranian oil is boycotted by the US, the EU countries and Asian allies such as Japan, would the passage of their ships be considered innocent? Absolutely not, as their passage helps the enemy become capable in threatening the country’s security. Passage of ships carrying weapons from the boycotters to other Gulf countries in the same way and based on the Geneva and Jamaica Conventions is against Iran’s national security and closing the Strait to them is Iran’s absolute right.

F- Para. 4, Art. 16 of the Geneva Convention of 1958, in addition to recognizing the rights of coastal countries to ban the passage of assumedly harmful ships, stipulates that before making this decision, it is necessary to notify the public, namely the international arena. The question is why does Iran not announce its decision to close the Strait based on the rights given by Para.4 Art. 16? I think, as evidence shows, if Iran wants to close the Strait, it is necessary to announce it in advance at the international level.