Moon of Alabama on February 16, 2008: Iran: Next Step – Sea Blockade
Under the justification of the need to prevent smuggling and proliferation of nuclear material, the U.S., the UK and France will establish sea patrols that will interdict all ships from and to Iran and search these for "dual use" material. They will confiscate any "dual use" stuff under a similar flexible definition of "dual use" as was used against Iraq …
Haaretz on May 21, 2008: Olmert to U.S.: Impose naval blockade on Iran
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has proposed in discussions with the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, that a naval blockade be imposed on Iran as one of several ways to pressure Iran into stopping its uranium enrichment program.
Wall Street Journal on May 28, 2008:
Punxsutawney Condi
A month-long naval blockade of Iran’s imports of refined gasoline – which accounts for nearly half of its domestic consumption – could clarify for the Iranians just how unacceptable their nuclear program is to the civilized world.
What took them so long?
Anyway – I continue to believe that a complete naval blockade, or a blockade of gasoline, will not happen simply because such a naval blockade is illegal. A Canadian government site explains the law of the sea:
It has become popular for many governments and opinion leaders to call for economic sanctions, including enforced trade sanctions, against a State felt to be in violation of international public order. Such actions were recently used against Iraq and Serbia. However, a naval blockade is, prima facie, a violation of freedom of the [High Seas]. Such efforts constitute a violation of international law if not conducted with the authorization of the United Nations Security Council pursuant to Chapter VII of the Charter.
There needs to be some ‘justification’, like the prevention of proliferation of (non-existent) Iranian nukes, and there needs to be some coalition of the willing because the U.S. will never get a Chapter VII Security Council vote for a total naval blockade.
There is also the need to keep the spice flowing, i.e. to allow Iran further oil exports, as otherwise a rush to $200-300/barrel would kill off the last tiny bits of GDP growth in the "west".
Still the calls from Israel and the WSJ Ziocon editors do generate some echo. There are signs pointing to the implementation of the ‘proliferation prevention’ effort I predicted.
Two days ago Bush’s national security advisor Stephen Hadley spoke at a meeting on the fifth anniversary of the Proliferation Security Initiative:
Mr. Hadley said he was particularly concerned about terrorist groups obtaining weapons of mass destruction. He raised the specter of Iran — which enriches uranium in defiance of three U.N. Security Council resolutions — funneling chemicals, germs, or radioactive material to terrorists.
"Chemicals, germs, or radioactive material" – Fertilizer, meat and hospital stuff – all ‘dual use’ items which will require ‘inspections’ and ‘confiscation’.