Many people are familiar with British humour. However, German humour, especially political satire, goes under the radar outside central Europe. Personally I find it brilliant (besides Das Heute Show, look up Volker Pispers political satire for something brutal, going back to the time before the first Iraq war)

10 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Hormuz is conclusively Persian in origin already, and it's already the Persian Gulf so Trump might need to make another concession. Though one suspects Trump's idea of concessions would be offering to build Trump Tower Tehran.

Really Bruce, even for you that's weaker than a homeopathic dilution drink. So the sole reason the US and Israel's attacks weren't cowardly was because they were not targeting Iran's economy explicitly? Well then, who bombed the Pars gas field first, Iran or Israel? Was that to cause economic chaos or not? The US and Israel definitely attacked a country weaker than them, without a declaration of war etc. But not cowardly because they didn't attack economic targets? Until they did, and most of Trump's rhetoric in the past week has been explicitly about economic/ civilian targets.

Obviously if you at war with someone you could and would target there economy. Thats expected and not cowardly

But thats not why Iran is attacking Gulf State oil fields or closing the Straits. They want to create pressure and chaos on the global economy and even countries that are not part of this war are impacted by that decision. The petrol price in South Africa is going up because of the Straits, Iran has no legal mandate to close an International Strait which Hormuz is. Why should South Africa be negatively effected because of this specific Iranian decision?

2 hours ago, rjshae said:

Mmm, it's about as legitimate as Western sanctions on Iran, wouldn't you say? They are using the Straits as a strategic lever to influence negotiations, just as we do with sanctions on Iran.

I dont think they are the same , sanctions are a tool that countries can and do use for various reasons. Its typically used to get a government to change a policy or decision

Its legitimate because any country can decide to sanction another country, you may think its unfair or selective but its not illegal

The Straits of Hormuz are considered an International Strait similar to International Waters, no country can unilaterally or legally decide to block this type of waterway or attack ships that aren't directly involved in the war

So its not legitimate what Iran is doing

The Conversation

How the law of naval warfare applies to the Strait of Hormuz

In the law of naval warfare, the line between belligerents and neutrals is not always an easy one to draw.

"Once there are armed hostilities between two (or more) states, the law of armed conflict – or international humanitarian law – applies.

The law of naval warfare is part of the law of armed conflict.

Some laws of naval warfare can be traced back to the Hague Conventions adopted at the start of the 20th century.

Most commonly, states will rely on the 1994 San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea.

Under the law of naval warfare, states are generally divided between belligerents (those engaged in armed hostilities) and neutrals (those not involved in the war).

The line between belligerents and neutrals is not always an easy one to draw. In the Middle East, at a minimum, Iran, Israel and the US could be classified as belligerents.

According to the San Remo Manual, ships flagged to neutral states, including their warships, may exercise their navigational rights under general international law through a belligerent’s strait.

It is recommended that neutral warships give notice of their passage as a precautionary measure. A belligerent must not target neutral ships – they are not considered military objectives and must not be fired upon.

During this conflict, Iran’s territorial sea (which includes the waters within the Strait of Hormuz) counts as an area of naval warfare. The belligerent states are legally required to have due regard for the legitimate rights and duties of neutral states in an international strait."

How can you not be a belligerent if you provide material support and bases of operation for a participant in a war? I would say that "auto includes" you in the list of belligerents.

Democrat wins Florida state seat containing Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate

9 hours ago, Gorth said:

How can you not be a belligerent if you provide material support and bases of operation for a participant in a war? I would say that "auto includes" you in the list of belligerents.

Yep.

They probably thought they were safe due to Russia not targeting all the western assets that Ukraine uses- which are also legitimate targets. That rather ignores that if Russia were in a similar situation to Iran is rather than Russia is... well, she wouldn't be, due to having nukes. ie the US would be trying to explain why the Ford was atomised rather than had a 'laundry fire'.

Plus of course and inevitably there's an extremely long list of all the times the west bombed 'non belligerents', targeted the economies of 3rd parties etc.

Indeed, every single point is a lesson in double standards. Perhaps best summed up by quoting an expert referring to the San Remo Manual. Which is specifically not binding, but in any case says:

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:

(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;

..

So yeah, you can legally target neutral ships running a blockade (though the binding legal framework for it is, iirc, from the 19th century).

And of course, most of the people shocked and appalled at Iran Blockading the Strait aren't shocked and appalled at, say, Israel starving Gazans or denying them water via blockade; they're just shocked and appalled when it effects them.