OSINT

Nuno Felix
RT @BrettErickson28: Many people believe that INSURANCE is the reason that vessels are not navigating the Strait of Hormuz. This is simply not true, and something that @mercoglianos has addressed repeatedly throughout this conflict.

But there is a far more challenging hurdle that will need to be overcome: sanctions and terror financing laws.

Vessels are able to secure insurance, AND that insurance can cover transit through the Strait of Hormuz. Now is it more expensive than it was pre-conflict? Of course, but we're still talking about rates generally between 1-4%. If that is every journey perpetually? No, that's clearly an issue. But for a single journey to get a hundred million dollar vessel, loaded with hundreds of millions of dollars of cargo, alongside the captain and crew out of a war zone? Easy choice.

... And that's what Greek shipping tycoon Evangelos Marinakis thought as well when he said he would be happy to pay up to $200,000 per vessel to transit the Strait of Hormuz.

Now why wouldn't this work?

ASSUMING that you paid Iran via the Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA), also known as the Tehran Toll Booth, you would be able to navigate under the assumption that Iran would not launch drones or missiles at your vessel. Is that a guarantee? Of course not, but this eliminates the "morality risk" element that many other people say is the "real" reason why vessels are unable to transit the Strait of Hormuz.

Insurance is not an issue. Crew safety, assuming a toll was paid, would not inherently be an issue... So why aren't vessels crossing the Strait of Hormuz in large numbers?

Sanctions and Terror Financing laws.

As it currently stands, this is the single greatest barrier as to why we are not seeing transit through the Strait of Hormuz, and why we will NOT see transit through the Strait of Hormuz the second an MOU is agreed upon by the United States and Iran.

Speaking to @abcnews today, I spoke to this risk, and why it's not just a "US problem":

"It really is kind of the single greatest barrier, because there's sanctions across various different countries, the US, UK, Canada, Australia, EU, and also terrorist-financing laws that are significant. You'd have, potentially, the individual who owns the company or who is operating the vessel, they would be personally sanctioned."

See the issue here? Many people have suggested, "Well if it REALLY is that great of an emergency, vessels will just pay the toll and risk sanctions".

Okay... but WOULD they? Would they PERSONALLY be willing to be sanctioned by the United States, EU, UK, Canada, and Australia? Effectively be personally cut off from the ENTIRE Western world? I don't think so.

Okay, okay, okay, Brett. But... what if the sanctions were just... not enforced! The governments just "looked the other way".

Enter terror financing laws. With the exception of the United Kingdom, the IRGC is a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) across the jurisdictions of the US, EU, Canada, and Australia. While carveouts CAN be made for sanctions, although it is unclear whether or not they would be, nor that all jurisdictions would do so simultaneously as would be necessary, terror financing laws are a far greater hurdle to roll back.

This is EXACTLY what we saw take place when the United States unsanctioned Iranian oil under General License U in the early days of the Iran War. Roughly 180M barrels became effectively "sanction-free"... But the primary buyer was still overwhelmingly China... and India.

Why? Because, while the sanctions were not applicable, purchasing said oil would be in violation of terror financing laws across the US, EU, Canada, and Australia. Providing "payment" or "material support" (meaning no, you can't just "barter") to the IRGC comes with the lovely penalty of PRISON.

"Okay, okay, okay, Brett... But what if the governments of the US, UK, EU, Canada, and Australia didn't enforce sanctions AND the governments of the US, EU, Canada, and Aust[...]

60 views20:25