"China is defying the blockade" Topic

link

link

How prepared are we to enforce this blockade? It's a long standing principle of international law that one cannot simply declare a blockade. One must physically enforce it.
Are we willing to go to war with China?
And what about Russia sending tankers to Cuba?

I keep getting snipped by

This was the big problem with declaring the blockade. China can immediately sail a ship through and they win big if you shoot at it or if you don't.

Sanctioned in 2023 for carrying Iranian crude.

The tanker's last call and subsequent departure was from a UAE port with 250,000 barrels of methanol on board, which would allow transit through the US blockade.

Source – from the first link listed above, the US Sun

As AGamer sais, the ship in question was the Chinese-owned "Rich Starry," which loaded methanol in the UAE -- NOT Iran, and so not subject to the blockade of IRANIAN PORTS only.

So we'll see what happens next, eh?

Sink 'em all, I say. That will jump-start solar and wind technology.

You anti Trumpers, looking for that "gotcha" moment… constantly. 🙄

"Rich Starry" isn't that your ship?

But even if 10% got through (have not yet) and 90% stopped. Would it be a failure? (Ok with your group, of course it would. 🙄).

Now let us say instead, that 10% were sunk (better hope not Chinese or Russian). Would you then cheer it as a success? (We already know the answer.🙄)

"Your" media wants that "gotcha". They will report anything that even vaguely resembles a "gotcha". They will do it with the minimum evidence possible. "HAH!!! we got old Orange this time!! 🤩😂🤪"

Yet "you" (generic you) snap it up like a starved carp in an overcrowded pond. Every time. 🙄

You wonder why we call it TDS.

"55 minutes ago
Two Iran-linked ships reverse course after US Hormuz blockade – BBC Verify

Two Iran-linked vessels that passed through the Strait of Hormuz after a US blockade was imposed have changed direction and appear to be heading back, BBC Verify reported, citing ship-tracking data.

The US-sanctioned tanker Rich Starry, which reported carrying cargo, sailed east from Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates through the strait overnight before reversing course, the report said.

Bulk carrier Christianna, which crossed the strait on Monday after calling at Iran's Bandar Imam Khomeini, has likewise now changed direction, the report added."

Contrary to all the doom and gloom, this seems to be drawing Iran back to the table. If it does and no more explosions or deaths.

A good thing? (Why do I ask 🙄).

I myself did not like Joe. Could not stand Hillary. Thought she was a ^}%%}%. Obama🤮. Thought Kamala was a … 😏.

But they sure as He## did not dominate my every waking moment. Yes, I believed they would destroy my country if elected as well as our culture and heritage (which of course they tried IMO). But again, if they did something positive, like killing Osama, I supported it and I NEVER wished ill on my country in order to humiliate them.

How many here can say the same right now? 😔

Will we seize ships? Will we seize Chinese ships?

"What if" China orders the Captain of a Chinese flagged ship to defy the "blockade"?

Read up on the history of blockades.

Britain and France both denounced the Union blockade of the Confederacy, at the beginning, primarily because it was only declared, and not enforced. Later, it was enforced and honored.

Can America legally declare a blockade on a nation with which we are not at war? Will the rest of the world acquiesce?

Not a matter of if we can, we did.

But maybe ask JFK.

This isn't even the first in this neck of the woods, not done by us though.

Reporting is now that the Chinese ship was turned back.

Thanks.

John

JFK didn't declare a blockade, because that would have been illegal under international law, and I guess he felt the US should respect the law. He certainly vetoed the other option of an air strike on Cuban missile sites, because that would be even more illegal. I quite doubt they even discussed hitting civilian targets, because that would be against the Geneva Convention.

Instead he declared a "quarantine" of any weapon bearing ships headed to Cuba in international waters. He didn't stop any other cargoes, because as he stated "We are not at this time, however, denying the necessities of life."

The legal justification for this was the Rio Treaty of the OAS. This action was enabled by JFK consulting, meeting and briefing fellow OAS heads of states before any actions were undertaken. By consulting with the allies of the US beforehand, not only did the OAS vote in favour, but they actually contributed ships to the "quarantine".

JFK had a very defined endgoal, clearly and publicly stated, that never wavered. He negotiated well – Russia withdrew its Cuban missiles, the US withdrew their nuclear missiles from Turkey but the latter was secret rather than the public humiliation that the USSR and more pointedly Khrushchev suffered.

So, JFK didn't break international law (albeit with a thinly veiled excuse), protected the US from an actual threat, clearly defined his goal in an address to the nation, didn't waver from it, consulted allies beforehand which resulted in consensus and naval help, behaved humanely, achieved his goal through good negotiation,

I'm not entirely sure comparing Trump's Iran fiasco to JFK's Cuba Missile Crisis is complimentary to the current administration.

"…argument is that a weakened Iran would disrupt China's energy supply, given that Iran exports 90 percent of its oil to China.

Yet China is 85 percent energy self-sufficient. Coal remains its primary energy source at over 51 percent of total consumption, and renewable energy surpassed oil in 2024 to become the country's second-largest source. Crude oil accounts for less than 20 percent of China's total energy consumption, meaning that Iranian oil flowing through the Strait of Hormuz represents, by the Nomura financial services group's calculation, only about 6.6 percent of China's overall energy picture. Beijing has also built substantial insulation against precisely this scenario: as of early March, China held approximately 1.39 billion barrels of oil in strategic reserves, enough to cover 120 days of net crude imports. China's electric vehicle push has already displaced over one million barrels per day of implied oil demand, and that figure continues to grow.

China can replace lost Iranian volumes by increasing imports from Saudi Arabia, Russia, Brazil, and other suppliers, though at a higher cost that would squeeze margins for independent refineries in Shandong province that relied on discounted Iranian crude. The disruption is economically inconvenient for Beijing, but it is not strategically crippling.

Yet energy security is not what has defined US strategy toward Iran. One expectation from the Trump administration could be to neutralize the Middle Eastern threat before pivoting to Asia. But such a coercive reset was never part of the stated Asia-first playbook, and whether it is achievable remains deeply uncertain. The Iran campaign is a departure from, not an expression of, the strategic framework its architects publicly endorsed…"

Armand

"So, JFK didn't break international law (albeit with a thinly veiled excuse), protected the US from an actual threat, clearly defined his goal in an address to the nation, didn't waver from it, consulted allies beforehand which resulted in consensus and naval help, behaved humanely, achieved his goal through good negotiation,

I'm not entirely sure comparing Trump's Iran fiasco to JFK's Cuba Missile Crisis is complimentary to the current administration. "

😂

1) Iran is and has been a threat to the U.S. and to many countries in the world since 79.
2) they have broken international law many times since 79, including the straights currently
3) pure semantics with Kennedy, all it was. Many "experts" believe he broke it.
4) it wasn't Kennedy's first breaking of international law, already done at least once already.
5) He had a lack backbone moment and let many Cubans die.
6) he came within the refusal of the second officer on a Russian submarine using his key, of a nuclear war. Just One key away.

One Key, the captain was ready to go.

"The Bay of Pigs invasion was widely viewed as a violation of international law because it involved an attempt to overthrow a sovereign government, which contradicts the UN Charter's principle of non-interference.

Legal Deception: To avoid direct charges of breaking international law, the Kennedy administration attempted to maintain "plausible deniability" by presenting the operation as a purely internal Cuban matter led by exiles, rather than a U.S. military intervention.

Restraint: Kennedy famously refused to provide U.S. air support during the invasion, partly because doing so would have been an undeniable breach of international law and sparked a much larger international incident.

Controversy: Critics like Senator J. William Fulbright argued at the time that the operation was inherently illegal and immoral, regardless of the attempt to hide U.S. involvement.

National Archives (.gov)

The Cuban "Quarantine" (1962)

In the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy ordered a naval blockade, which he strategically termed a "quarantine" to navigate international law.

Council on Foreign Relations

Act of War: Under customary international law, a blockade is considered an "act of war" that typically requires a formal declaration of war to be legal. By calling it a "quarantine," the U.S. argued it was a limited defensive measure rather than an all-out act of war.

Regional Approval: To establish a legal basis, the U.S. sought and received unanimous approval from the Organization of American States (OAS). The administration argued this fell under Article 52 of the UN Charter, which allows regional organizations to maintain peace and security.

Mixed Opinions: While some jurists concluded the U.S. acted within the law because of the OAS resolution, many international law specialists view the blockade of third-party ships on the high seas as a violation of international law, especially without UN Security Council backing."

As to the Pope, maybe he should stay out of both internal and external politics in the United States. Unless of course the President can tell him how to perform Mass, collect from a flock and how to spend it.

"The Conflict with Pope Leo XIV (2026)

Following Pope Leo XIV's criticism of the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran and plans for mass deportation, another public feud erupted in April 2026. Pope Leo XIV termed Trump's rhetoric and policies "unacceptable". Trump countered on Truth Social, advising the Pope to "focus on being a Great Pope, not a Politician" and labeling him as "WEAK on Crime".""

Can America legally declare a blockade on a nation with which we are not at war?

Yes. If an armed conflict exists — as is currently the case with Iran following the February 2026 U.S./Israeli strikes and Iranian responses — the legal analysis shifts entirely to the laws of armed conflict. In that context, a belligerent blockade of enemy ports and coastal areas is a recognized right, governed primarily by the San Remo Manual (1994 – under the International Institute of Humanitarian Law), rather than by sanctions resolutions (of which there are many against Iranian oil shipments even if the UN doesn't want to enforce them). The Manual requires the blockade to be properly declared and notified, applied impartially, kept effective, and conducted without the sole purpose of starving civilians.In the present situation, the U.S. has framed its April 13, 2026 naval blockade of Iranian ports under these laws of armed conflict rules, not the UNSCR sanctions regime.

Funny how you didn't care about the legalilty of Iran declaring the Hormuz closed, demanding ransom, and physically attacking and sinking commerical ships from countries that it's not at war with (which actions, btw, give the US even stronger legal basis since it brings Iran's violations of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Will the rest of the world acquiesce?

So far, yes -- it shouldn't effect them if they are not buying sanctioned Iranain oil.

Funny how you didn't care about the legalilty of Iran declaring the Hormuz closed, demanding ransom, etc etc etc

All of you guys love the "Yeah, but what about…?" logical fallacy.

I must note that you were unable to refute a single fact about the parallels between Kennedy and Trump's foreign interventions. The blockade was indeed a paper thin excuse to evade the law, as I mentioned. However, he felt the need to at least apply a veneer of legality, which is rather important one would think.

Clear unchanging goals? Consulting with allies? Getting naval aid? Behaving humanely? Good negotiations? You'll note that is all lacking in the current war. I'm not entirely why that elicited a laughing emoji.

I was rather hoping you'd bring up the Bay of Pigs. It's actually another useful historical example

Was it idiotic? Yes. Foolish? Poorly planned? Yes and yes. Illegal? Undoubtedly.

It was so incredibly inept that it was one of the examples in a seminal book that coined and defined the psychological phenomenon called "Groupthink". Fascinating work, although I haven't read it in years. Perhaps a little dated now, but the phenomenon is still very much in evidence today and the book provides not only the case studies of Groupthink but also concrete steps to counteract it.

The Bay of Pigs plan was initiated under Eisenhower, and presented to JFK as he stepped into office. Unsure of himself, and surrounded by advisors who were either unanimous in their approval or did not mention any potential problems, dangers or hazards, JFK approved it, although he did have the brains to scale it back and remove the air support. (There is a theory it would have succeeded if the air support had been implemented. That is complete nonsense. Castro had broad public support, the landing zone was poorly chosen

No opposing viewpoints were given to JFK, who again, had just stepped into the presidency and hasn't had many security briefings yet. He had to trust his advisors, who didn't do their job, which many admitted later. A decision maker – a good decision maker – needs opposing opinions and all the facts. Groupthink pressure is massive (there are some fascinating and eye opening psychology studies on this, which really show how susceptible we hairless monkeys are to peer pressure).

when the President admits he didn't use facts but rather "instincts"… that's classic groupthink.

Well, not classic. The DNI apparently told him that Iran wasn't anywhere close to a nuclear device, and General Caine was against starting a war with Iran. Instead of listening to the highly professional career soldier, and Gabbard (got to give her credit for presenting facts instead of blind obedience) he went with Vance, Rubio, Bibi and his "instincts".

But here is a new one.

Trump has NOT prosecuted this conflict as strongly as I would have and I believe is justified.

My sentiments can best be expressed by this quote from the "Quiet Man"

"So the I.R.A.'s in this too, huh?"

"If it were, Red Will Danaher, not a scorched stone 'o. your fine house'd be standin'."

I was 10 when JFK was elected.
Even in an Irish Catholic family, and with my town a Democratic stronghold in Pennsylvania, I still couldn't have voted for him.

So, don't try to hold me responsible for dumb things he did.
By the way, I blame the Dulles bros for 80% of the dumb that happened in that time. Oh, and J Edgar Hoovers too. Don't forget MacNamara.

Tony, bluntly I totally disagree with you on Iran

If it ended today, I and others view it as a success and vastly overdue.

I wish we could keep these to one TMP topic, instead of every time the media believes they have another "gotcha" moment, one of you opens another "gotcha" topic.

IMO JFK was a spoiled child of a minor Irish mobster. Had much the same issue Bill did with his zipper. Lucked out in Cuba. Success with the space program. Some other minor successes. Failed with Vietnam.

At best, an average President. But a bullet and looks got him rated higher than he was. Well that and a much worse VP who became President afterwards.

China plans to deliver air defense systems to Iran during fragile cease-fire deal: report

link

Armand

Well!
We can agree that LBJ sucked!
A miracle! 😄🥃

OVI +1

Wow !!! A lot of "SNIPs" …