Forwarded from Amir Tsarfati
Suez vs. Hormuz: Why do you pay for one — and fight over the other?
Iran’s recent threats to impose “fees” on vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz raise an obvious question: if ships pay substantial sums to pass through the Suez Canal, why is it considered extortion in Hormuz?
The answer lies in one fundamental distinction - both geographic and legal.
The Suez Canal is a man-made waterway. Egypt constructed it, maintains it, and operates it within its full sovereign territory. Legally, it functions as a toll road. Ships pay for the use of infrastructure built and maintained by a sovereign state. This arrangement is legitimate, regulated, and grounded in international agreements such as the Constantinople Convention of 1888.
The Strait of Hormuz, by contrast, is a natural maritime passage. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), vessels enjoy the right of continuous transit passage through international straits. This is a fundamental principle of international law that even bordering states — Iran and Oman — cannot suspend, restrict, or condition upon payment. They may enforce safety and environmental regulations, but they do not “own” the passage.
Therefore, when Iran attempts to levy fees or threatens to close the strait, it is not exercising a legitimate sovereign right — it is attempting to monetize coercion. It transforms a protected international right of navigation into a geopolitical pressure tool. In practical terms, any such demand for payment amounts to state-backed extortion.
(Doron Peskin)
Iran’s recent threats to impose “fees” on vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz raise an obvious question: if ships pay substantial sums to pass through the Suez Canal, why is it considered extortion in Hormuz?
The answer lies in one fundamental distinction - both geographic and legal.
The Suez Canal is a man-made waterway. Egypt constructed it, maintains it, and operates it within its full sovereign territory. Legally, it functions as a toll road. Ships pay for the use of infrastructure built and maintained by a sovereign state. This arrangement is legitimate, regulated, and grounded in international agreements such as the Constantinople Convention of 1888.
The Strait of Hormuz, by contrast, is a natural maritime passage. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), vessels enjoy the right of continuous transit passage through international straits. This is a fundamental principle of international law that even bordering states — Iran and Oman — cannot suspend, restrict, or condition upon payment. They may enforce safety and environmental regulations, but they do not “own” the passage.
Therefore, when Iran attempts to levy fees or threatens to close the strait, it is not exercising a legitimate sovereign right — it is attempting to monetize coercion. It transforms a protected international right of navigation into a geopolitical pressure tool. In practical terms, any such demand for payment amounts to state-backed extortion.
(Doron Peskin)
The GoldFish Report No. 1203 - Nano-Diamond Tech Used in Military Ghost Murmur & Human Hybrids
https://www.bitchute.com/video/zNcrbwsz8YqG
https://www.bitchute.com/video/zNcrbwsz8YqG
Bitchute
The GoldFish Report No. 1203 - Nano-Diamond Tech Used in Military Ghost Murmur & Human Hybrids
On The GoldFish Report No. 1203, Louisa reports on the advanced technology the military used to locate missing downed pilot in Iran in addition to the latest disclosure from Matt Gaetz on the Benny Johnson show about alien/human hybrids, super-soldiers and…
Forwarded from Insider Paper
Full transcript of VP JD Vance press conference after peace talks in Pakistan:
Thanks to the Prime Minister of Pakistan and to Field Marshal Munir, who were both incredible hosts. And whatever shortcomings of the negotiation, it wasn't because of the Pakistanis, who did an amazing job and really tried to help us and the Iranians bridge the gap and get to a deal. We have been at it now for 21 hours, and *we've had a number of substantive discussions with the Iranians. That's the good news.* The *bad news is that we have not reached an agreement*. And I think that's bad news for Iran much more than it's bad news for the United States of America. So *we go back to the United States having not come to an agreement*. We've made very clear what our red lines are, what things we're willing to accommodate them on, and what things we're not willing to accommodate them on. And we've made that as clear as we possibly could, and they have chosen not to accept our terms.
*Questions?*
Nick Robertson from CNN. *Precisely what have they rejected here*? Can you help us understand it a little bit?
Well, *I won't go into all the details because I don't want to negotiate in public after we negotiated for 21 hours in private*.
*But the simple fact is that we need to see an affirmative commitment that they will not seek a nuclear weapon and they will not seek the tools that would enable them to quickly achieve a nuclear weapon. That is the core goal* of the President of the United States, and that's what we've tried to achieve through these negotiations.
Again, their nuclear programs, such as it is, the enrichment facilities that they've – that they had before, they've been destroyed. But *the simple question is, do we see a fundamental commitment of will for the Iranians not to develop a nuclear weapon, not just now, not just two years from now, but for the long term? We haven't seen that yet*.
*We hope that we will.*
and also *did the Iranian frozen assets come up and did you reach any conclusion*? We talked about all those issues, Jen, and we talked about a number of issues beyond that. And so certainly those things came up. But again, *we just could not get to a situation where the Iranians were willing to accept our terms*.
I think that *we were quite flexible*. We were quite accommodating. The president told us, you need to come here in good faith and make your best effort to get a deal. We did that.
And *unfortunately, we weren't able to make any headway*.
Preston: Mr. Vice President, how often did you communicate with President Trump throughout the negotiations?
There were reports that there were multiple rounds, where there were breaks in between negotiations.
How often did you communicate with the President throughout those rounds, and what was he saying as you were going through these negotiations that you said fell short?
Yeah, obviously we were talking to the president consistently. I don't know how many times we talked to him, a half dozen times, a dozen times over the past 21 hours.
We obviously also talked to Admiral Cooper, to Pete, to Marco, to the entire national security team. We talked to Scott Bissen a number of times. So look, we were constantly in communication with the team because *we were negotiating in good faith*.
And we leave here, and *we leave here with a very simple proposal, a method of understanding that is our final and best offer.*
*We'll see if the Iranians accept it.*
Thank you.
Thanks to the Prime Minister of Pakistan and to Field Marshal Munir, who were both incredible hosts. And whatever shortcomings of the negotiation, it wasn't because of the Pakistanis, who did an amazing job and really tried to help us and the Iranians bridge the gap and get to a deal. We have been at it now for 21 hours, and *we've had a number of substantive discussions with the Iranians. That's the good news.* The *bad news is that we have not reached an agreement*. And I think that's bad news for Iran much more than it's bad news for the United States of America. So *we go back to the United States having not come to an agreement*. We've made very clear what our red lines are, what things we're willing to accommodate them on, and what things we're not willing to accommodate them on. And we've made that as clear as we possibly could, and they have chosen not to accept our terms.
*Questions?*
Nick Robertson from CNN. *Precisely what have they rejected here*? Can you help us understand it a little bit?
Well, *I won't go into all the details because I don't want to negotiate in public after we negotiated for 21 hours in private*.
*But the simple fact is that we need to see an affirmative commitment that they will not seek a nuclear weapon and they will not seek the tools that would enable them to quickly achieve a nuclear weapon. That is the core goal* of the President of the United States, and that's what we've tried to achieve through these negotiations.
Again, their nuclear programs, such as it is, the enrichment facilities that they've – that they had before, they've been destroyed. But *the simple question is, do we see a fundamental commitment of will for the Iranians not to develop a nuclear weapon, not just now, not just two years from now, but for the long term? We haven't seen that yet*.
*We hope that we will.*
and also *did the Iranian frozen assets come up and did you reach any conclusion*? We talked about all those issues, Jen, and we talked about a number of issues beyond that. And so certainly those things came up. But again, *we just could not get to a situation where the Iranians were willing to accept our terms*.
I think that *we were quite flexible*. We were quite accommodating. The president told us, you need to come here in good faith and make your best effort to get a deal. We did that.
And *unfortunately, we weren't able to make any headway*.
Preston: Mr. Vice President, how often did you communicate with President Trump throughout the negotiations?
There were reports that there were multiple rounds, where there were breaks in between negotiations.
How often did you communicate with the President throughout those rounds, and what was he saying as you were going through these negotiations that you said fell short?
Yeah, obviously we were talking to the president consistently. I don't know how many times we talked to him, a half dozen times, a dozen times over the past 21 hours.
We obviously also talked to Admiral Cooper, to Pete, to Marco, to the entire national security team. We talked to Scott Bissen a number of times. So look, we were constantly in communication with the team because *we were negotiating in good faith*.
And we leave here, and *we leave here with a very simple proposal, a method of understanding that is our final and best offer.*
*We'll see if the Iranians accept it.*
Thank you.
Forwarded from Insider Paper
Iran and the U.S. failed to reach a deal to end the Middle East war after talks in Islamabad.
- Vice President JD Vance said he presented Tehran the “final and best offer” before departing.
- Washington wants a firm Iranian commitment not to develop nuclear weapons.
- Vance said the U.S. has not yet seen that commitment from Iran.
- He indicated Tehran still has time to consider the U.S. proposal.
- The U.S. had paused attacks with Israel for two weeks during negotiations.
- Pakistan said it will continue facilitating dialogue and urged respect for the truce.
- Iranian state media blamed “unreasonable demands” from the U.S. for stalled talks.
- Iran’s foreign ministry said no one expected a deal in a single session after 40 days of war.
Full details: https://bit.ly/4sN9wqR
- Vice President JD Vance said he presented Tehran the “final and best offer” before departing.
- Washington wants a firm Iranian commitment not to develop nuclear weapons.
- Vance said the U.S. has not yet seen that commitment from Iran.
- He indicated Tehran still has time to consider the U.S. proposal.
- The U.S. had paused attacks with Israel for two weeks during negotiations.
- Pakistan said it will continue facilitating dialogue and urged respect for the truce.
- Iranian state media blamed “unreasonable demands” from the U.S. for stalled talks.
- Iran’s foreign ministry said no one expected a deal in a single session after 40 days of war.
Full details: https://bit.ly/4sN9wqR