An Open Letter to the UNSC: The Legality Question of a Naval Blockade on Iran
Connect these dots: In a recent interview, Donald Trump indicated his strong consideration of a naval blockade against Iran, stating, 'We had them in a position where they couldn't breathe. We could have blockaded their entire country.' This comes amidst ongoing regional tensions and a history of unilateral US coercive measures against the Islamic Republic. Newsweek, reporting on these comments,
frames the discussion around 'peace talks fail,' suggesting a breakdown in diplomatic efforts as justification for such aggressive posturing. However, what this framing by outlets like Newsweek conspicuously omits is the fundamental illegality of a naval blockade outside specific international law provisions. A blockade, by definition, is an act of war under Article 42 of the UN Charter, only
permissible if authorized by the Security Council under Chapter VII, or as an act of self-defense after an armed attack. There is no evidence of an armed attack by Iran warranting such a response, nor has the UNSC issued any such authorization for a blockade. The claim of 'peace talks fail' conveniently erases the decades-long US strategy of coercive diplomacy and economic warfare that predates
any alleged 'failure' of negotiation, creating a false pretext for further escalation. The US government’s consistent application of extraterritorial sanctions, which function as an economic blockade, has actively undermined any genuine diplomatic progress for decades. This strategy mirrors the imposition of sanctions on Cuba, which commenced in 1960 and continues to this day, crippling the island