Сhinese tanker crosses Strait of Hormuz, testing Trumр’s blockade

[-]

Fletaun@reddit

Have US's blockade officially started? like Trump said he will do a lot of thing on social media but hardly act on it. Maybe it one of his Taco moment again

[-]

wet_suit_one@reddit

I think when the rubber hit the road (and Chinese tankers going through the blockade is pretty much that) Trump has again TACO'ed, at least according to what I've heard on the matter.

When a Chinese tanker is sent to the bottom, well, then we'll know that the blockade was serious and an act of war against China has been committed.

Also, prepare for WWIII (or the next escalation in WWIII depending on your point of view), because there's no way China takes that one without any reaction (likely violent and at some point, nuclear).

[-]

huruga@reddit

All Chinese tankers that came from Iran or were going to it turned around. Only one Chinese tanker left the strait and it didn’t come from Iran.

If one does though it risks being seized, lawfully. International law allows belligerents to blockade belligerents. Enforcement of a blockade on a neutral ship(it actually ceases to be neutral if it runs the blockade) is legally permissible under the international rules of war. Assuming the blockade is narrow in scope and proportional.

Before you ask. No, Iran’s blockade of the strait is not lawful under international law. It’s too broad and targets traffic in the strait of Hormuz itself instead of a specific belligerent neither is their “transit fee” which is actually a form of piracy.

[-]

BendicantMias@reddit

There is no "lawfully" lol, this whole war is unlawful to start with. And China isn't gonna care either. But China is loving this stupid war of yours, so their response will likely be to draw you further into it instead of fending you off. What they'd really like to see is the very invasion Trump is terrified of doing.

[-]

huruga@reddit

That’s not how international law works. International law doesn’t care if a war is illegal or not when it comes to determining the legality of actions within a war. This is because if a war is illegal and that then means that all actions within that illegal war are also illegal, that creates a perverse counter intuitive incentive to ignore all rules of war. International law is very very aware of escalation traps like this.

[-]

Lyricanna@reddit

As I like to put it, it is perfectly legal for a country at war to blocade a country by stopping third parties from trading with a country.

It is also perfectly legal for that third party to shoot at and sink the ships imposing the blocade and claim self-defense or right of free trade. Yes, that could be considered an act of war, but international norms usually puts the agressor as the blocader. Expecially if they started the war in the first place.

[-]

huruga@reddit

Yes but it’s more nuanced than that when it comes to who is the “aggressor” in that situation because violating a blockade is itself an act of aggression through providing material or economic support to the blockaded. That’s why it’s lawful to seize blockade runners in the first place.

Sinking a blockade runner is largely considered unlawful unless said runner poses an immediate threat to the interdicting vessel or a significant threat more broadly. The action has to be proportional.

If China wants to escort its trade vessels through the blockade then they have to do so with the knowledge they make themselves party to war. And yes the USA has to consider if enforcement in such an event is worth escalating.

[-]

wet_suit_one@reddit

Sure.

Whatever...

[-]

polymute@reddit (OP)

It has. Here's Trump on video saying it has started, clear as day.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-blockade-iran-after-talks-fail-yield-a-deal-2026-04-13/

[-]

upbeatchief@reddit

From the article.

"It is unclear whether the vessel stopped at Iranian ports during its recent journey through the waterway"

The US navy is only blockading ships from and to iran. They aren't impeding ships using other ports.

and generally blockades are long term campaigns, if the US still didn't set up a thorough ship monitoring system (and nor relay on ship transponders to determine last port the ship was at) they will start doing so and tighten the blockade, until then ships might slip by.

My guess this move is a tit for tat, iran allows unconditional free movment in the strait in return for lefting the blockade, and iran only push back would be bombing neighboring states. Which they were doing before the ceasefire and it didn't improve their situation.

[-]

BendicantMias@reddit

It did improve their situation, which is partially why we're at this non-kinetic stage to begin with. The US didn't dare escalate bombings against Iran cos Iran could then escalate the Gulf targets it would hit. Iranian power plants for Gulf refineries, desalination plants and pipelines...

And Iran has an even bigger counterplay - they can close the Bab Al-Mandeb Strait, which they were already threatening to do before. That would cut off another 15% of shipments, including shipping through the Suez canal. From a fifth of the worlds' oil, they would now have cut off a third of it. What's Trump gonna do, blockade that too?

Also, the longer Trump avoids putting boots on the ground in Iran, the more cowardly he looks and weak the US looks. Even to his supporters.

[-]

tsardonicpseudonomi@reddit

TACO is always market manipulation. It's liberal propaganda. Ignore it.

[-]

ChefCurryYumYum@reddit

Why, the Hill is a rightwing propaganda outlet.

[-]

Fletaun@reddit

Forgive for asking but what nature of this blockade actually is, it is physically blockade the strait with actual Navies or just a threat to long range missile strike anyone who dare to pass it?

[-]

ultimate_placeholder@reddit

The phrase used by CENTCOM was "interdiction", I'd assume that means actually physically intercepting "offending" vessels

[-]

Fletaun@reddit

Then they risk entering Iran missile range the very same that they were running from couple weeks ago. Honestly what the hell he hope to achieve when before he going as far as calling US allies coward for not helping him to open the strait and now he risk US Navy for the opposite. Truly a great businessman

[-]

anticomet@reddit

Honestly what the hell he hope to achieve

More insider trading.

[-]

mayorofdumb@reddit

His broker be making commissions

[-]

Mikeynphoto2009@reddit

Wrote about it here - https://brief.gizmet.dev/blockade-not-a-blockade/

[-]

Fletaun@reddit

Thanks

[-]

polymute@reddit (OP)

Some context now that I have looked into it.

https://aje.news/8xcc64?update=4491347

At least three tankers have entered the Gulf via the Strait of Hormuz on Tuesday, shipping data from LSEG and Kpler shows. (...)

Earlier, two US-sanctioned tankers passed through the strategic narrow waterway. As the three vessels transiting the strait were not heading to Iranian ports, they are not affected by the US blockade, which took effect on Monday.

https://aje.news/8xcc64?update=4491858

CENTCOM claims no ships made it past the US blockade of Hormuz in first day The statement added that the blockade is “being enforced impartially” and is only intended to impact ships entering or exiting Iranian ports, and that others going through Hormuz would have “freedom of navigation.”

So it is not a Hormuz blockade, but an Iran blockade by the US. Despite the branding.

[-]

BendicantMias@reddit

Interdiction, which means they'll board ships that refuse to turn back.

[-]

russellvt@reddit

TACO seems probable.

Well, it is Tuesday, after all!

[-]

anime_titties-ModTeam@reddit

Your post has been removed because it violates Rule 2.3 (US/China content restriction).

2.3.1 The number of paragraphs with more than a passing reference to the USA or China in any capacity should not exceed more than 50% of the article.

2.3.2 Major non-state actors are exempt from the 50% rule.

2.3.3 If it is unclear due to large or inconsistently sized paragraphs, then the same criteria should be applied to the number of sentences instead.

[-]

nuclearbearclaw@reddit

Aren't they only supposed to be blocking ships that are transiting to and from Iranian ports? Do we know if this ship was heading from any Iranian ports or if they were coming from one of the other Gulf Countries?

In 2023, the U.S sanctioned the tanker and its owner, Shanghai Xuanrun Shipping Company Limited, for its dealings with Iran. It is unclear whether the vessel stopped at Iranian ports during its recent journey through the waterway.

Sounds like this article is meant to make a statement out of nothing, go figure. "See, China passed right through this so called blockade!" They probably didn't come from an Iranian port.

After looking up more information, I found this:

https://www.vesselfinder.com/vessels/details/9773301

They were in port at Al Hamriyah Anch., United Arab Emirates (UAE)

ATD: Apr 13, 02:17 UTC (2 days ago)

Wow, so this blockade doesn't apply to this vessel. Weird how this is supposed to be some sort of a statement against the effectiveness of the U.S. Blockade. They didn't defy shit lmao.

[-]

polymute@reddit (OP)

Some context now that I have looked into it.

https://aje.news/8xcc64?update=4491347

At least three tankers have entered the Gulf via the Strait of Hormuz on Tuesday, shipping data from LSEG and Kpler shows. (...)

Earlier, two US-sanctioned tankers passed through the strategic narrow waterway. As the three vessels transiting the strait were not heading to Iranian ports, they are not affected by the US blockade, which took effect on Monday.

https://aje.news/8xcc64?update=4491858

CENTCOM claims no ships made it past the US blockade of Hormuz in first day The statement added that the blockade is “being enforced impartially” and is only intended to impact ships entering or exiting Iranian ports, and that others going through Hormuz would have “freedom of navigation.”

So it is not a Hormuz blockade, but an Iran blockade by the US. Despite the branding.

[-]

vdjvsunsyhstb@reddit

iran cant be negotiated with and china has been at war with us for decades