正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

Kyle Chassé 🐸 Thailand didn’t unlock anything — it navigated the situation smartly. The Strait of Hormuz is now operating on geopolitical permissions, not international norms. That’s a major shift: global trade routes are being shaped by alignment, not law.💥

51,090 次观看 • 4 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

BREAKING: Iran named a warship after the general who spent his career threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz. The US just lit it on fire in the Strait of Hormuz. The IRIS Shahid Sayyad Shirazi, a Soleimani-class corvette, is burning at Bandar Abbas right now. Footage is out. The smoke is visible from the port. Bandar Abbas is not a random target. It is Iran’s primary naval base. It sits directly at the mouth of the strait that carries 20% of the world’s oil. This is not a ship that was sunk in the Indian Ocean four thousand miles away. This is Iran’s naval guardian, on fire, at the gate it was built to defend. A week ago, Admiral Brad Cooper said the US had destroyed 17 Iranian ships. Then the IRIS Dena went down near Sri Lanka. Now a corvette is burning at the crown jewel of Iran’s entire naval posture. Here is what the Strait of Hormuz looks like right now. 85% reduction in maritime traffic. Iran threatening closure. The vessel specifically designed to enforce that threat is on fire at the base that commands the chokepoint. Iran cannot close the Strait. Iran cannot defend the Strait. Iran cannot patrol the Strait. The force built to do all three is being systematically destroyed at its own piers. Every tanker captain, every shipping insurer, every energy desk pricing this conflict as a 4-to-5-week regional event needs to look at that footage and ask a different question. Not when does the war end. When does the traffic come back. Those are not the same question. And only one of them is priced.

Shanaka Anslem Perera ⚡

237,301 次观看 • 5 个月前

This is not Hiroshima. This is not Gaza. This is not Lebanon. This is not Iran. This is Ukraine now… bombed with FAB-3000, a 3-ton bomb. Events that should not be publicized, yet must be highlighted. I remember when I sat alongside President Zelensky's representative during a closed-door diplomatic meeting under the mediation of the Turkish president aimed at encouraging Ukraine to resume the “Istanbul peace talks” with Russia. When we reached a critical juncture, the Ukrainian Deputy Foreign Minister asked a question while I was trying to persuade him to return to negotiations: "What if you were in my shoes—with your land occupied and your people killed every day, while Putin violates international law on a daily basis? Would you continue to fight and support the resistance, turn to negotiations, or surrender?” At that moment, I wanted to give him an answer based on a similar personal experience, not a diplomatic one; for I was thinking of Lebanon, where our people were being killed daily and our land was under occupation. I pointed out that Israel currently occupies and controls 10% of Lebanon (that was the figure at the time; it has since risen to 20%)—the same proportion that Russia occupies and controls of Ukraine. The World condemned Russia, but cannot condemn Israel! Ukraine itself sided with Israel, citing the right to self-defense! The issue was never occupation. It was the identity of the occupier. I mentioned that international law hasn’t failed in Ukraine or in Lebanon or in Gaza and beyond. This’s not the failure of the law. The law stands and its principles remain clear. The failure is our collective will to uphold it. And to put a punishment for those who violate the international law. International law is not optional that you invoke only when it suits you. Double standards in international law—and the weaponization of that law to serve national interests—have led to a situation where international law is no longer respected. War crimes beget war crimes—When the international community failed to bring one state to justice for violating the international law, they knew they can do it again, and another state will inevitably follow suit with impunity. I concluded by stating that I would shift the focus to human security rather than state security; however, negotiating human security requires a ceasefire first. Otherwise, it would be tantamount to surrender, allowing the other to impose its terms and forcing you to concede. International law must be the same for everyone everywhere, and no State above international law. If I criticize your side, you assume I'm on theirs. If I criticize their side, they assume I'm on yours. You are both wrong. My position is guided by principles and upholding the law rather than alignment. I am basically against anything that kills people or destroy the planet we live on. I belong neither to this side nor that; I belong to humanity and Earth.

Mohamad Safa

70,069 次观看 • 28 天前

This is how Secretary Rubio defines the Strait of Hormuz: "This is an international waterway and international law is very clear... international water is no country can control them." His argument in the context of the Strait of Hormuz suffers from significant legal deficiencies: First, there is no "high seas" corridor in the Strait of Hormuz. Second, the fundamental principle of free and safe passage stipulates that neither "transit" nor "innocent" passage should be prejudicial to the peace, good order, or security of the coastal state. This was the baseline until February 27. Since February 28, when an actual war of aggression was launched against Iran, a fundamental change in the legal landscape occurred. Under international law, passage loses its "innocent" or "transit" status once it involves the transport of weaponry intended for military operations, threats of force, or intelligence gathering against the security of the coastal state. Similarly, a state utilizing a strait to launch an offensive against a coastal state effectively designates that area as a theater of war. Consequently, this situation invokes Article 51 of the U.N. Charter on the right of self-defense, in accordance with a "peremptory norm" that supersedes standard navigation rules. It also invokes the doctrine of rebus sic stantibus (a fundamental change of circumstances), which justifies a legal recalibration of the principles of free and safe passage, balanced against the legitimate security concerns of the coastal state. Third, conversely, Secretary Rubio’s statement effectively defines the illegality of the U.S. blockade, as it is exercised specifically in: a) international waters; and b) areas that are not under U.S. control, to be subjected to its extraterritorial sanctions.

Iran in Japan/ 駐日イラン大使館

12,551 次观看 • 3 个月前