Talk:Strait of Hormuz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Saudi Arabia Portal This article is part of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Saudi Arabia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

	This article is part of WikiProject Maritime Trades, a group of editors working to improve Merchant Shipping topics. To learn more or join the project, please visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale.

==Baseless claims]] An encyclopaedia is no place for baseless territorial claims of this Shaykh or that Shaykh, so I hope other users do not undo my edits. --Mani1 15:54, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I won't revert, but I would think that particular territorial holdings in the strait are a reasonable and relevant. Why do you think they aren't? Is it just the pettiness of the particular holdings? --Golbez 16:07, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 What a coincidence of Hurmogh! 2 Conjecture 3 Biggest surface battle since WWII? 4 More on Etymology 5 What Percentage of the World's Oil ? 6 Traffic Separation Scheme vs Channel 7 Iranian Revolutionary Guard vs. U.S. Navy 8 International Waters 9 Importance tag

[edit] What a coincidence of Hurmogh!

Korean   Sounds like   Meaning 
------   -----------   ---------
흐르다    huruda/hrda   (v.) flow
흐름      hurum/hrm     (n.) flow
목        mog/mok       (n.) neck

--KYPark 03:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conjecture

"Lending vast importance to the United Arab Emirates (and the Dubai Ports World's deal) as a staging area for future American-Iran hostilities. No military strategy can hope to succeed without first establishing a beachhead across the strait in Iran, so that the danger of blowing up oil tankers and blocking passage is removed." <----People don't come here to read your military strategies....I suggest this be removed

Someone beat me to the punch. I second the opinion above. This is not a place for armchair generals to convene. Removing the passage in question. --Impaciente 23:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biggest surface battle since WWII?

I infer from 86.8.109.202's unsigned edits that the editor believes that the Falklands War, not Operation Praying Mantis, was the largest clash between surface forces since WWII. But I can't find any reference to surface warships actually shooting at each other in the 1982 conflict, unlike the 1988 one in the Strait. All the sunk ships in the Falklands were hit by UK subs or Argentine and UK aircraft. Am I missing something? PRRfan 16:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More on Etymology

Very interesting remark from KYPark, however Prof. Ali Mazaheri in expresses his opinion on etymology of Hormoz, I shall edit the main article soon when I will get hold of the book again. He believes that the word derives from Hur (=water, lake)+Mouz (=Bannana), meaning the waterway which Bannana was imported to Mainland Iran/Persia. Other very interesting linguistic fact about Hormoz is that there is a town called "Pohl", it has shortest distance to the other side of the shore. "pwhl"(transliteration from Book Pahlavi)"Puhl" in Middle Persian means "Bridge" cf. New Persian "Pol/Pul". Did Ancient Iranians plan to build a bridge to connect to Qeshm via the bridge? is there Archeological evidence for that or should we seek for it? Prooshan 20:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)prooshan

[edit] What Percentage of the World's Oil ?

I can get web sites saying 20% of the world's oil goes throught the straits, and also ones saying 40% and ones saying 40% of oil EXPORTS. Is there some reference we could use that's better than quoting a newspaper article? Mike Young 09:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Traffic Separation Scheme vs Channel

I don't think it is correct to say that the shipping channel is six miles wide even through some sources say this. The word channel implies that navigation outside the channel is restricted because of depth or navigational hazards such as rocks etc. This is not the case with the Straits of Hormuz. The TSS is 6 miles wide and the purpose is to reduce the risk of collisions, not keep ships in deep water as is the case of a marked channel. The difference is that if a channel is blocked then tankers would be unable to transit the strait. In this case there is no reason to block the TSS as a loaded tanker could simply sail around it. A big ULCC has a draft of 25 meters or so, the straits are 50+ meters both inside and outside the TSS. Ken E. Beck 14:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you know more about this than I. PRRfan 15:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Traffic lanes serve the same purpose as lines painted on highways or parking lots to guide traffic. You don't have to follow them when you drive but it is safer if you do. Here is a chart that shows about 70% if the lanes [1] Ken E. Beck 15:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iranian Revolutionary Guard vs. U.S. Navy

Went ahead an at least started this section. If I was in error, let me know. BigGator5 (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems far too early to be notable. This event will probably slip into memory rapidly with no long term consequences. That being said, I'm new around here, so I'll leave the call to someone else. Pugget (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That's why I choose to place it here instead of it's own article. If nothing else comes out of this event, then I'll remove the current event tag. BigGator5 (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately someone already removed the tag. I was hoping to get more facts on here. --Playmaid (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should think about cleaning up all the references (I know I am mostly at fault for this) and condense them into maybe two references. I will leave you wiki vets to do this. BigGator5 (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] International Waters

After today's events I learned that the Strait of Hormuz is an international water. Could anybody verify this information and add to the article what it is that makes it an international water. Are there international binding contracts? --Playmaid (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

In an attempt to answer this question, I scanned through Security and Territoriality in the Persian Gulf: A Maritime Political Geography, by Mojtahed-Zadeh using Google and Amazon's booksearch. The book is moderately old in geopolitical terms, but the last treaty he mentions in regards of the straight was signed on July 15th 1974 between Iran and Oman. They basically split the straight down the middle. Relevant pages are 94-96. The agreement was based on an older British document, the Admirality Chart No. 2888 of 1962. To quote the book: "The boundary agreement of 1974 does not specify any method of delimitation except that the boundary line is clearly calculated on equidistant between the coastlines of the two countries' islands" (poor grammar in the original). The book lists no further treaties that I see, which indicates the strait is not international water. According to the same book, Iran declared in 1993 that all territorial waters be open for "innocent passage," although they reserve the right to revoke it (pg. 100-101). I'm not sure one book is enough to go on however... Pugget (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I should mention that I'm going to remove the international waters remark until there is more clarity. Pugget (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

An interesting question. Certainly, the U.S. government considers free passage through the Hormuz strait to be an international right, and has devoted considerable naval power over the past few decades to enforcing that.[2] PRRfan (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. That is a very interesting information! I did have my doubts already, though we still don't know whether there are newer agreements maybe. But I doubt that it turned into an international water after 1993. --Playmaid (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The 1993 declaration was not specific to the Strait, but addressed all Iranian territorial waters. As far as I can tell, 1974 was the last official treaty. I'm slightly dubious however - 1974 seems like a long time in the region! Cheers, Pugget (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Parts of the Strait have no international waters, and ships rely on Innocent passage to traverse the Straits. Warships can do inoccent passage, but must not do things like threaten to use force, fire weapons, launch helicopters, travel underwater (see UNCLOS Part 2 Article19), so if the U.S warship wasn't in international waters it was in a trcky legal position. I recall reading an interview with U.S. Admiral about this in regard of Iran Air Flight 655 shootdown, but can't track down the interview right now. Iran's ICJ pleadings has a map marking Iran's claims in the Strait on page 20. The collision between USS Newport News and tanker Mogamigawa is interesting, because if the sub was in Iran's water while submerged that was very naughty, and would probably have much annoyed the Iranians. Rwendland (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

CORRECTION: It is Transit Passage under UNCLOS Part 2 Article 37-44 in a Strait, not Innocent passage, with fewer restriction. Though the normal passage north of the Strait may well involve Innocent passage thru Iran's waters, as it looks quite shallow further out in international waters. Rwendland (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW though the UNCLOS was signed by both the USA and Iran, but not ratified so far. --Playmaid (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I think its innocent passage rules are simply a codification of customary international law in this area, which pretty-much everyone accepts. Anyway I notice Bloomberg is reporting "The U.S. ships were in international waters, the Navy said in a press release." [3] [4] Rwendland (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I also assumed that innocent passage was customary international law at first, because I thought it was not bearable to have to deal with countries not allowing to pass in an area like the Persian Gulf. Though if it was customary law, there would be no reason for Iran to declare it an "innocent passage" area, and Iran would not go on threatening to close it again, which they have done throughout the past years. I've tried to find confirmation of it being customary law, though have not found any yet. --Playmaid (talk) 10:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

DOD has just released video, and it is confusing. The US seaman broadcasts on VHF to the Iranians "I am engaged in transit passage in accordance with international law, I intend no harm." ... "You are approaching coalition warships in international waters." to 3 distant small patrol craft. Not sure if the clips are from different times, but it only makes sense if they are. Then a boat shown possibly making the threat seemed to be a small unarmed speedboat with 2/3 people closer in, not flying a flag, and the voice making the rather unclear possible threat seemed to have an African accent: "I am coming to you. We will (unclear: explode?), (unclear: after just a minute?)". All very odd. Without timestamping it is hard what to make of it all, but the threatening speedboat is not obviously Iranian. Rwendland (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No surprise, Iran is now claiming the video was "fabricated" from "file photos." As you say Rwendland, the video clears absolutely nothing up. Of course, it will make great play on the various television networks. Cheers, Pugget (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Importance tag

Someone's asking whether the article needs the Jan. 7 incident section at all, a concern voiced earlier by Pugget. I would guess that the incident will indeed recede in importance, but I believe that a single paragraph is not too much to devote to it. PRRfan (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be yours truly. Yes, I consider this a case of WP:RECENTISM (which IMHO to some extent has polluted a fair deal of articles on Wikipedia). If the incident is in any way notable then perhaps a 'see also' pointer to a line or two over at United States-Iran relations would be more suitable. Cheers, 88.148.206.233 (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider it important anymore, too. It was most probably blown out of proportion from the beginning. Since there have been paragraphs on Strait events before, I think a short paragraph in this article would do. --Playmaid (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I do think full discussion of this event is better suited in United States-Iran relations, which I see does not mention it yet. I propose moving the current text there, and leaving something brief here. If we're not careful this aticle will fill up with geopolitcal detail, which shouldn't be the thrust of this article. That said major events which lead to deaths, and relate to navigation (like the sub accident), probably should get a mention - but this event is marginal I think. Rwendland (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good -- my main concern was that the detail that had been accumulated and cited here would be lost to WP, but moving it to another page is fine. PRRfan (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, done. Rwendland (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)