Iran's armed forces warned Gulf countries against assisting the US military on Wednesday, hours after the United Arab Emirates announced it was severing economic ties with Tehran following new attacks on shipping. The Gulf is dotted with US military installations, including in the UAE, which said on Tuesday that Iran had fired two ballistic missiles at vessels off its coast. Despite a recent lull in hostilities between the United States and Iran, the Strait of Hormuz -- which Tehran has blockaded -- remains a flashpoint, and attacks on commercial ships have continued. A framework US-Iran deal aimed at reopening the vital trade corridor collapsed, and although both sides recently said messages were being exchanged, US President Donald Trump on Tuesday insisted talks were off, taunting Iran with a social media post depicting the strait as a "NEW U.S. Territory". Iranian armed forces chief of staff Ali Abdollahi, according to the Mehr news agency, warned "any assistance or facilitation provided to the aggressor US military amounts to participation in the US military operation". The conflict broke out on February 28 with US-'Israeli' attacks on the Islamic republic, which retaliated with missile and drone strikes across the region. Since the start of the war, many Middle Eastern countries have said they would not allow the United States to use their territory as a launchpad for attacks, though Abdollahi cast doubt on those promises. "It seems unlikely that such a large number of military aircraft, particularly refuelling aircraft, could be present at regional bases without knowledge of host countries," said Abdollahi, adding Gulf countries "should know that we are fully aware of the situation".
Iran accused the United States of “economic terrorism” and “crimes against humanity” on Thursday, after Washington said it would ramp up sanctions to heap pressure on Tehran.
“Undoubtedly, the US economic sanctions against Iran, which have targeted the fundamental human rights of every Iranian citizen, are a case of ‘economic terrorism’ and ‘crimes against humanity’, and the perpetrators and instigators of these sanctions are deserving of trial and punishment for committing such heinous crimes,” Iran’s foreign ministry said in a statement carried by state media.
Such measures in which you use economic weight to purposely cause harm to another nation should at least be recognized as an act of war, so that a response is warranted by international law, including by military means.
We would need a LOT of new international guidelines for this.
It’s not clear to me where we would draw the line, since there’s not really an enforceable difference between, “Allowing you to use our financial system is causing us harm, so you can’t do that anymore,” and “You can’t use our financial system until you <insert demands here>.”
While a blockade is recognized as an act of war, an embargo is not. The US sanctions usually operate like a specific, services-based embargo, so there’s no interpretation of CURRENT international law rendering it an act of war. Again, we would need new guidelines to meet your goal.
Thanks for your insight. But sometimes they even release documents that confirm the purpose of a measure is to cause harm. I struggle to rationalize this for countries not already in armed conflict.
I struggle to rationalize this for countries not already in armed conflict.
Legally, practically, or morally?
Practically, armed conflict is way more expensive, and it’s riskier. If you had two strategies for changing someone’s behavior: 1) Punch them until they agree to change, 2) Tell them they can’t borrow any more money from you until they agree to change… you would probably prefer number two because it’s less risky.
Legally… we only have 80 years of precedent for the USD being the world’s reserve currency, amd 50 years of weaponizing that power with the IEEPA. Rules for armed conflicts, on the other hand, are ancient. We have a lot of examples for acts of war in armed conflicts, and we can quickly define them and recognize them. For defining and regulating financial “attacks”… we have basically nothing.
Morally… you and I have different moral systems from the people in charge. People can rationalize some truly heinous shit.
Meaning it should not be politically acceptable in peace times by the same conventions used to condemn unprovoked military operations. Unless dishonesty is involved, seems irrational to react differently to situations with similar results.
Such measures in which you use economic weight to purposely cause harm to another nation should at least be recognized as an act of war, so that a response is warranted by international law, including by military means.
We would need a LOT of new international guidelines for this.
It’s not clear to me where we would draw the line, since there’s not really an enforceable difference between, “Allowing you to use our financial system is causing us harm, so you can’t do that anymore,” and “You can’t use our financial system until you <insert demands here>.”
While a blockade is recognized as an act of war, an embargo is not. The US sanctions usually operate like a specific, services-based embargo, so there’s no interpretation of CURRENT international law rendering it an act of war. Again, we would need new guidelines to meet your goal.
Thanks for your insight. But sometimes they even release documents that confirm the purpose of a measure is to cause harm. I struggle to rationalize this for countries not already in armed conflict.
Legally, practically, or morally?
Practically, armed conflict is way more expensive, and it’s riskier. If you had two strategies for changing someone’s behavior: 1) Punch them until they agree to change, 2) Tell them they can’t borrow any more money from you until they agree to change… you would probably prefer number two because it’s less risky.
Legally… we only have 80 years of precedent for the USD being the world’s reserve currency, amd 50 years of weaponizing that power with the IEEPA. Rules for armed conflicts, on the other hand, are ancient. We have a lot of examples for acts of war in armed conflicts, and we can quickly define them and recognize them. For defining and regulating financial “attacks”… we have basically nothing.
Morally… you and I have different moral systems from the people in charge. People can rationalize some truly heinous shit.
Meaning it should not be politically acceptable in peace times by the same conventions used to condemn unprovoked military operations. Unless dishonesty is involved, seems irrational to react differently to situations with similar results.