cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/c/world/p/1034118/trump-says-u-s-navy-will-immediately-blockade-strait-of-hormuz-after-ceasefire-talks-end
President Donald Trump on Sunday said the U.S. Navy would “immediately” begin a blockade of ships entering or leaving the Strait of Hormuz, after U.S.-Iran ceasefire talks in Pakistan ended without an agreement or next diplomatic steps in sight.
In his first public comments after the 21-hour talks, Trump sought to eliminate Iran’s key source of leverage in the war by exerting strategic control over the waterway that was responsible for 20% of global oil shipping before fighting began.
A U.S. blockade could further rattle global energy markets. Trump told Fox News the goal was to ensure all ships could transit: “It’s going to be all or none, and that’s the way it is.”
Let me clarify: If any ships that passed through were registered to a NATO owned country (not saying that any actually are right now).
Now the territory part is interesting. So does that mean you’re free to attack a nations resources outside of their borders without giving them a means triggering Article 5?
Art 5 doesn’t cover the outlying french (or Spanish. Or English, or Hawaiian) territories that are outside north arlantic for example. So ships - even less so. Art5 (along with all other arts) are an obligation. It gives member countries a strong casus belli, in a sense. Art5 doesn’t suddenly place the armed forces of NATO under some command structure to be commanded at will by US or the aggrieved memberstate.
That said, a memberstate whose properties or civilians are attacked as an act of war is free to choose their response. Countries allied to any fighter can choose their supporting response outside the NATO framework.
I would guess that’s precisely where the term “international waters” refers to.