The Strait of Hormuz between internationalization and geographical blackmail: (The importance of the three islands)Study of strategic position assessment

A
The Strait of Hormuz between internationalization and geographical blackmail: (The importance of the three islands)
Study of strategic position assessment
introduction: Impact Passage Geography and Navigational Fact
The Strait of Hormuz is the world's most important energy and technical artery “Narrow strait” It intersects the territorial waters of the riparian countries.
• Geography of the corridor: The strait connects the Arabian Gulf to the Sea of ​​Oman, and varies in width at its narrowest point (Navigation strait) about 33 km, up to 95 How many other points. This geographical narrowness is what makes it a sensitive focal point where national sovereignty and international interests intersect.
• Delusions “Iranian lake”: Tehran is trying to market the idea of ​​absolute sovereignty over the strait, but geography says that the corridor is shared; Iran is located to its north, while the Sultanate of Oman is located (Musandam Peninsula) And the United Arab Emirates in its south.
• Shocking navigational fact: Fall down “Geographical guardianship” Iran in the face of hydrographic facts; As the lanes are navigable for huge ships and giant oil tankers (Deep Water Channels) Most of them are located within Omani, not Iranian, territorial waters, which makes the Iranian claim of right of control abstract “Propaganda” A politician with no credit on depth maps.
Firstly: Legal basis (UNCLOS 1982 And the UN resolution 2817)
Navigation in the strait is governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982), which strictly separates state sovereignty from global trade rights:

1. territorial waters (Subject 3): The Convention limited the sovereignty of the coastal state to 12 Nautical miles (22.2 how much) From the baseline. Since the width of the strait is at its narrowest point (33 how much) Less than the total territorial waters of the two banks (\bm{12 + 12 = 24} A mile)The waters of Iran and Oman intersect, placing the entire strait under a special legal regime that guarantees freedom of trade.
2. Transit right of way (Transit Passage) – materials 37-44: This is the essence of international protection; International law stipulates that the straits connecting two parts of the high seas are subject to... “Transit traffic”. It is a right that guarantees rapid and continuous passage for ships and aircraft without obstacles, and coastal states have no right to suspend, stop, or harass it for any political reason..
   secondly: Dismantling the fallacies of blackmail”Illegal collection”
   Tehran is trying to circumvent international law through distorted intellectual paths:
   • Fallacy “Innocent traffic”: Iran evaded an agreement 1982 To uphold an agreement 1958 Which gives it the right to search ships if it feels threatened. The international community rejects this “Intellectual relapse” It is considered “Transit traffic” It is the binding custom that protects the global economy from the whims of powerful countries.
   • The philosophy of financial blackmail: Attempting to charge a traffic fee is a diversion of geographic location to “A levying fiefdom”. International law prohibits the imposition of corresponding fees “Traffic” Except for optional services (Guidance or cleaning). Which Iranian fees are “Royalties” Illegal to compensate for the impact of the economic blockade.
   • Environmental excuses: she “Legal piracy” selectivity; The Iranian regime remembers environmental protection only as an excuse to stop tankers when political pressure on it intensifies.
   Third: Regulating laws and maritime zones (Digital detail)
   It is necessary to distinguish between legal scopes to protect national sovereignty without compromising freedom of navigation:
3. Contiguous area (until 24 A mile): The state exercises limited control (Customs, tax, immigration).
4. Exclusive economic zone (until 200 Mail): The state has the right to exploit resources (Oil, gas, fishing) But it has no authority to prevent international navigation or aviation.
5. Security Council condemnation (Decision support 2817): The latest Security Council condemnation comes in 2026 To lift the lid on any “Sovereign act” Iranian disrupts navigation. This legal description transforms Iranian harassment, aggression against neighboring countries, and threats from mere threats “Border dispute” to “A clear threat to international peace and security”This paves the way legally for activating the tools of Chapter Seven to protect the corridor militarily.
   Fourth: The occupied UAE islands (Military blackmail pliers)
   Three islands file (Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb, and Abu Musa) It is the real key to understanding strategy “Geographic bullying”:
   • The site and its strategy: These islands are located in a highly sensitive area; Greater and Lesser Tunb control the international shipping lanes emerging from the Gulf, while Abu Musa is located in an intermediate location that controls the movement of ships heading to the Emirati and Omani ports.. Whoever controls it actually controls it “radar” Strait.
   • Legal status (Occupation): Illegal military occupation began in 30 Nov 1971. Iran categorically refuses to resort to the International Court of Justice because it realizes that historical documents and maps (British and local) It is proven that the islands belong to the sheikhdoms of Ras Al Khaimah and Sharjah before the establishment of the union.
   • Militarization of the Strait (Geographic daggers): Iran turned these islands into... “Military forts” and platforms for rockets “on the sea” And advanced surveillance radars. This presence gives Iran “Offensive depth” Within the international corridor, it is used as an executive tool to blackmail and harass carriers.
   • Completed international recognition: There is consensus (Arab, Gulf, European, American) On the sovereignty of the Emirates. The most important strategic shift is the signing of Russia and China (2023-2024) On statements supporting a peaceful solution and international arbitration, which completely pulled the rug out from under the allegations “Absolute sovereignty” To Iran.
   Fifth: Expansionist doctrine and Iranian legal contradiction
6. continuity “Expansionist doctrine”: This proves that Iranian policy towards the Arabian Gulf is a policy “Expansive nationalism” Cross-system. It changed with the departure of the Shah and the arrival of Khomeini “Ideological cover”; Greeds in the islands and the strait are an Iranian geopolitical constant.
7. Fall of argument “Exporting the revolution” or “Defending the vulnerable”: Current Iran always tries to portray its movements in the region as supporting the oppressed or confronting colonialism. But the fact that the occupation took place during the reign of the Shah (Who was an ally of the West and a policeman for the region) Proves that the case is “Pure Iranian colonial occupation” It developed and transformed to export the revolution with the religious slogans that came later.
8. International legal position (Iranian contradiction): Khomeini regime after 1979 Announce “Innocence” Of the Shah's policies and agreements and described them as “Tyranny”But when it came to the three islands, he adhered to the occupation and added to it “Military-religious coloring” More severe.
   “The occupation of the three islands is general 1971 During the era of the Shah, and the continued adherence to it after the 1979 revolution, reveals a consistent Iranian strategy aimed at controlling international shipping.. This proves to the world that the problem is not in (System form) Iranian, but in (Expansive behavior) Which flouts international laws and neighborhood rights, which makes demanding an end to the occupation a necessity to prevent the continuation of this expansionist legacy that threatens the stability of the Strait.”
   Sixth: Development of military doctrine (From symbolism to offensive arsenal)
9. The era of the Shah (1971-1979): The occupation as a political front. The military presence was limited and symbolic, aiming to prove geographical sovereignty and reassure the Western allies of the existence of Iranian control over the entrances..
10. era “Islamic Republic”: Comprehensive militarization of the Strait: After 1979, Iran moved the islands from “Symbolism” to “Offensive military functionality”:
    • Convert carrots to “Missile bases”: Fixed missile platforms “on the sea” Long range, puts any ship in the strait in “Direct crossfire”.
    • rules “Naval guerrilla warfare”: Launching point for speedboats (Fast Attack Crafts) To engage in harassment and detention (Field blackmail).
    • Air defense and intelligence: Advanced radars and air defense systems violate principles “Transit right of way”.
    “The Islamic Republic regime has developed military tools on the occupied islands far beyond what the Shah aspired to. He turned them from disputed islands into 'time bombs'’ In the heart of the waterway. This military development proves that Iran not only seeks sovereignty, but also seeks to possess 'field military veto power'’ On global energy supplies, which makes the continued occupation of these islands a threat that goes beyond the UAE to global energy security
    Strategic conclusion: The hammer and anvil of international law “Military occupation”
11. Legal abstraction: Proving the invalidity of Iran’s absolute sovereignty and imposing any fees, and describing its actions internationally as “State-sponsored piracy”.
12. The cumulative international path: The repeat convictions under Chapter VI are constructive “Record violations” Documented attacks on neighboring countries are the necessary legal prelude to moving to Chapter Seven to protect the global energy artery.
13. Dismantling executive tools: Restoring UAE sovereignty over the three islands is a global security necessity. Keeping these islands occupied means survival “Blackmail tools” In the hands of the Revolutionary Guard, it threatens international peace.
    Procedural recommendations:
    • Mandatory arbitration: Demand a resolution from the United Nations General Assembly “An advisory opinion” From the International Court of Justice on the legality of the Iranian military presence on the islands, to break a barrier “Refusal to arbitrate”.
    • Demilitarization of the strait: Demand the internationalization of cross-strait security monitoring “Joint navigation protection force” Considering any installation of new missile systems “Violating red lines” International.
    • Navigational disengagement: Enhancing reliance on navigation lanes in Omani territorial waters and documenting this in updated international navigation charts.
    Final vision: Siege or devastating strike
    Based on the data of 2026, we face two paths:
    • the first: The suffocating blockade will continue until the system collapses structurally and it accepts the cessation of all intercontinental projects.
    • the second: If intransigence continues, “The international profile of a devastating blow” It has already begun to take shape, supported by international legal cover and broad international support to protect the economy and international legitimacy from... “Geographic bullying”.
    The Strait of Hormuz is not “lake” For one, the UAE islands are not “Spoils of war”; Rather, they are pillars of a global security system that cannot be divided by tyranny. Restoring international legitimacy in this waterway begins with the recognition that international law does not protect “fait accompli” resulting from military force, but rather protects “Historical and sovereign right” Which ensures everyone's safety.
    Mr. Qutaiba Qasim Al-Arab
    President of the National Council for Human Rights

The Strait of Hormuz: Between Internationalization and Geographical Blackmail
The Strategic Importance of the Three Islands: A Strategic Position Assessment Study
Introduction: The Geography of the “Shocking Corridor” and the Navigational Reality
The Strait of Hormuz is considered the most vital artery for global energy. Technically, it is a “narrow strait” where the territorial waters of the coastal states overlap.
• Geography of the Corridor: The strait connects the Arabian Gulf with the Sea of Oman. Its width at the narrowest point (the navigational strait) is approximately 33 km, reaching 95 km at other points. This geographical narrowness makes it a sensitive flashpoint where national sovereignties intersect with international interests.
• The Illusion of the “Iranian Lake”: Tehran attempts to market the idea of absolute sovereignty over the strait. However, geography dictates that the corridor is shared: Iran lies to the north, while the Sultanate of Oman (Musandam Peninsula) and the United Arab Emirates lie to the south.
• The Shocking Navigational Reality: Iranian “geographical guardianship” collapses before hydrographic facts. The channels suitable for large vessels and supertankers (Deep Water Channels) are mostly located within Omani territorial waters, not Iranian. This renders the Iranian claim of control mere political “propaganda” with no basis on bathymetric charts.
First: The Legal Anchor (UNCLOS 1982 and UN Resolution 2817)
Navigation in the strait is governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982), which strictly separates state sovereignty from global trade rights:

1. Territorial Waters (Article 3): The convention fixed the sovereignty of the coastal state at 12 nautical miles (22.2 km) from the baseline. Since the strait’s width at its narrowest point (33 km) is less than the sum of the territorial waters of both banks (\bm{12 + 12 = 24} miles), the waters of Iran and Oman overlap, placing the entire strait under a special legal regime that guarantees freedom of trade.
2. The Right of Transit Passage (Articles 37-44): This is the core of international protection. International law stipulates that international straits connecting parts of the high seas are subject to “Transit Passage.” This right guarantees ships and aircraft continuous and expeditious transit without hindrance. Coastal states have no right to suspend, impede, or harass this passage for any political reason.
   Second: Deconstructing Blackmail Fallacies and “Illegal Levies”
   Tehran attempts to circumvent international law through distorted intellectual paths:
   • The “Innocent Passage” Fallacy: Iran evades the 1982 Convention to cling to the 1958 Convention, which grants it the right to inspect ships if it senses a threat. The international community rejects this “intellectual regression” and considers “Transit Passage” the binding custom that protects the global economy from the whims of coastal states.
   • The Philosophy of Financial Blackmail: Attempting to impose transit fees is an attempt to turn a geographical location into a “fiefdom of taxation.” International law prohibits the imposition of fees for “passage”; fees are only permitted for optional services (pilotage or cleaning). Any Iranian fees are considered “illegal levies” (tributes) to compensate for the impact of the economic blockade.
   • Selective Environmental Pretexts: These are acts of “legal piracy.” The Iranian regime only remembers environmental protection as a pretext to seize tankers when political sanctions intensify.
   Third: Regulatory Laws and Maritime Zones (Digital Detail)
   It is essential to distinguish between the legal zones that protect national sovereignty without infringing on the freedom of navigation:
3. The Contiguous Zone (up to 24 miles): The state exercises limited control (customs, fiscal, immigration).
4. The Exclusive Economic Zone (up to 200 miles): The state has the right to resources (oil, gas, fishing) but has no authority to prevent international navigation or overflight.
5. UN Security Council Condemnation (Resolution 2817): The recent Security Council condemnation in 2026 strips away the cover for any Iranian “sovereign act” that disrupts navigation. This legal characterization transforms Iranian harassment and aggression against neighboring states from a mere “border dispute” into a “clear threat to international peace and security,” legally paving the way for invoking Chapter VII tools for military protection of the corridor.
   Fourth: The Occupied UAE Islands (The Military Blackmail Pincer)
   The file of the three islands (Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb, and Abu Musa) is the true key to understanding the strategy of “Geographical Bullying”:
   • Location and Strategy: These islands are located in an extremely sensitive area. The Greater and Lesser Tunbs control the international shipping lanes exiting the Gulf, while Abu Musa is centrally located to control vessel movement toward UAE and Omani ports. Whoever controls them effectively controls the “radar” of the Strait.
   • Legal Status (Occupation): An illegal military occupation that began on November 30, 1971. Iran categorically refuses to go to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) because it realizes that historical documents and maps (British and local) prove the islands belong to the Emirates of Ras Al Khaimah and Sharjah before the formation of the Union.
   • Militarization of the Strait (Geographical Daggers): Iran has turned these islands into “military fortresses” and platforms for “surface-to-sea” missiles and advanced surveillance radars. This presence grants Iran “offensive depth” within the international corridor, used as an executive tool for blackmail and harassment of tankers.
   • Complete International Recognition: There is a consensus (Arab, Gulf, European, American) on UAE sovereignty. The most significant strategic shift is Russia and China’s (2023-2024) signing of statements supporting a peaceful solution and international arbitration, which permanently pulled the rug out from under Iran’s claims of “absolute sovereignty.”
   Fifth: The Expansionist Doctrine and Iranian Legal Contradiction
6. Continuity of the “Expansionist Doctrine”: This proves that Iranian policy toward the Arabian Gulf is a “nationalist-expansionist” policy that transcends regimes. With the departure of the Shah and the arrival of Khomeini, it merely shifted into an “ideological cover.” The ambitions for the islands and the strait are an Iranian geopolitical constant.
7. Collapse of the “Exporting the Revolution” or “Defending the Oppressed” Argument: Current Iran always tries to portray its movements as supporting the oppressed or confronting colonialism. However, the fact that the occupation occurred during the Shah’s era (a Western ally at the time) proves the issue is “pure Iranian colonial occupation” that later evolved into “exporting the revolution” using religious slogans.
8. The International Legal Position (Iranian Contradiction): Post-1979, the Khomeini regime declared “innocence” from the Shah’s “tyrannical” policies and agreements. Yet, regarding the three islands, it clung to the occupation and added a much more severe “military-religious character” to it.
   “The occupation of the three islands in 1971 under the Shah, and the continued persistence in holding them after the 1979 revolution, reveals a fixed Iranian strategy aimed at controlling the chokehold of international navigation. This proves to the world that the problem is not the (type of regime) in Iran, but rather the (expansionist behavior) that flouts international laws and neighboring rights, making the demand to end the occupation a necessity to prevent the continuation of this expansionist legacy that threatens the stability of the Strait.
   Sixth: Evolution of the Military Doctrine (From Symbolism to Offensive Arsenal)
9. The Shah’s Era (1971-1979): The occupation served as a political facade. The military presence was limited and symbolic, intended to assert geographical sovereignty and reassure Western allies of Iranian control over the entrance.
10. The “Islamic Republic” Era: Comprehensive Militarization of the Strait: After 1979, Iran moved the islands from “symbolism” to “offensive military functionality”:
    • Transformation into “Missile Bases”: The IRGC converted the three islands into fixed platforms for long-range surface-to-sea missiles, placing any ship in the strait literally in the “direct line of fire.”
    • “Naval Guerrilla Warfare” Bases: The islands became launch points for Fast Attack Crafts used for harassment and seizure (field blackmail).
    • Air Defense and Intelligence: Advanced radars and air defense systems (such as the “Khordad-15”) were installed, placing the strait’s sky and waters under “forced” Iranian surveillance, violating “Transit Passage” principles.
    “The Islamic Republic regime has developed military tools on the occupied islands that far exceed what the Shah ever dreamed of; it has turned them from disputed islands into ‘time bombs’ in the heart of the waterway. This military evolution proves that Iran does not merely seek sovereignty, but rather seeks to possess a ‘military field veto’ over global energy supplies, making the continued occupation of these islands a threat that extends beyond the UAE to global energy security.”
    Strategic Conclusion: The Hammer of International Law and the Anvil of “Military Occupation”
11. Legal Stripping: Proving the invalidity of absolute Iranian sovereignty and the illegality of imposing any fees, and characterizing its actions internationally as “State-Sponsored Piracy.”
12. The Cumulative UN Track: The repeated condemnations under Chapter VI and the building of a documented “record of violations” and aggressions against neighboring states is the necessary legal prelude to transitioning to Chapter VII to protect the global energy artery.
13. Deconstructing Executive Tools: The restoration of UAE sovereignty over the three islands is a global security necessity; the continued occupation of these islands means “blackmail tools” remain in the hands of the IRGC to threaten international peace.
    Procedural Recommendations:
    • Compulsory Arbitration: Demanding a UN General Assembly resolution seeking an “Advisory Opinion” from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) regarding the legality of the Iranian military presence on the islands, to break Iran’s barrier of “refusing arbitration.”
    • Demilitarization of the Strait: Calling for the internationalization of strait security monitoring through a “Joint Maritime Protection Force” to ensure the islands are not used as offensive platforms, and considering the installation of any new missile systems on these islands a “violation of international red lines.”
    • Navigational Disengagement: Strengthening reliance on shipping lanes in Omani territorial waters and documenting this in updated international navigational charts to undermine any Iranian pretext of jurisdiction over passing vessels.
    Concluding Vision: The Siege or the Decisive Blow
    Based on the data of 2026, we face two paths:
    • The First: Continuation of the suffocating siege until the structural collapse of the system and its acceptance of stopping all transcontinental projects.
    • The Second: In the event of continued defiance, the “international features of a decisive blow” have already begun to take shape, supported by a UN legal cover and broad international support to protect the economy and international legitimacy from “geographical bullying.”
    The Strait of Hormuz is not a “lake” for anyone, and the three UAE islands are not “spoils of war”; rather, they are pillars in a global security system that does not accept division by tyranny. Restoring international legitimacy in this waterway begins with recognizing that international law does not protect the “in fact” situation resulting from military force, but rather protects the “historical and sovereign right” that ensures the safety of all.
    Professor Qutaiba Qasim Al-Arab
    President of the National Human Rights Council

The Strait of Hormuz, the occupied Emirati islands, the law of the sea, UN Resolution 2817, national sovereignty, navigational security, geographic blackmail, internationalization, Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb, Abu Musa, Chapter Seven..

Strait of Hormuz, Occupied UAE Islands, Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), UN Resolution 2817, National Sovereignty, Maritime Security, Geographical Blackmail, Internationalization, Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb, Abu Musa, Chapter VII.