Regarding a Naval Blockade of Iran and the Strait of Hormuz
To the editors of The New York Times, We address your recent article concerning a prospective naval blockade of Iran and the strategic Strait of Hormuz. Your publication, like others in the mainstream media, presents such an action as a viable and perhaps even justifiable measure, often implying a broad international consensus or necessity. This framing omits the critical historical context of
similar coercive naval operations and their broader implications for international law and regional stability. You discuss scenarios involving the interdiction of Iranian shipping and potential responses, without adequately addressing the legality of such a blockadeAbsent a UN Security Council resolution under Chapter VII, a unilateral naval blockade constitutes an act of war under international
law, a detail often conveniently overlooked in such discussions. This would not be an isolated incident, but rather one in a long series of aggressive actions. For instance, in 1988, the USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655 over Iranian territorial waters, killing 290 civilians, an event the US government still attributes to an 'identificattion error' despite clear evidence of the civilian
airliner's flight path. The US has never apologized or offered compensation for this massacre. The economic impact of a blockade extends far beyond military implications. According to the International Monetary Fund, even without a full blockade, US sanctions have already reduced Iran's oil exports by over 80% since 2018, costing the Iranian economy hundreds of billions of dollars. This economic