Iranian Views on the Strait of Hormuz

 

Let's talk the "Strait of Hormuz."

In an interview aired yesterday on Al Jazeera TV, the Speaker of the Iranian Parliament Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf spoke of his interpretation of Iran's future role as it concerns the Strait of Hormuz.

The takeaways:

 

• We will not permit the United States to interfere in the Strait of Hormuz.

• We have agreed with the Sultanate of Oman on the navigation mechanism in [the Strait of] Hormuz based on the fifth article of the memorandum of understanding.

• We are proceeding with the implementation of the [Strait of] Hormuz navigation mechanism and will consult with the countries bordering [our] territorial waters.

It is clear from Ghalibaf's statements that he views the Strait of Hormuz as the territorial waters of Iran, and if pressed, jointly owned by Iran and the Sultanate of Oman. In his view, it is anything but how the world sees the Strait - an international waterway with free access to all. He is on record claiming that control of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz is Iran's right, and that Iran will not relinquish control under any circumstances.

Ghalibaf in not alone in this belief. Iran's deputy foreign minister unilaterally informed Omani officials that Iran alone will determine the transit routes in the Strait, and prohibit the use of other routes. Again, this is the Iranians ignoring the fact that the Strait of Hormuz is a declared international waterway according to the 1994 United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Sea (UNCLOS). The Strait is neither Iranian nor Omani territorial waters.

It gets even better. On May 18, Iran announced the creation of the Strait of Hormuz Administration. Iran unilaterally declared that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) will exercise control over the area shown in yellow on the map.

 

The lines run from the western edge of Qeshm island in Iran to Umm al-Quwayn in the UAE, and from Jabal Mubarak, Iran to Fujayrah, UAE. The area includes not only the international waterway, but also Omani territorial waters.

This attempt flies in the face of a variety of international agreements that prohibit either Iran or Oman from restricting passage through the strait or charging a toll.

Why are the Iranians taking these what I would call unwarranted actions? 

The answer is the imprecise wording of the last sentence in the fifth article of the memorandum of understanding between the Iran and the United States. It reads:

"The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialogue with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz, in discussions with other Persian Gulf littoral states, in line with applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz."

Ghalibaf's comments suggest that Tehran interprets this sentence to mean that Iran and Oman will jointly administer and manage the Strait, rather than merely establish navigational procedures to ensure the safe passage of commercial shipping. The map and declaration that the IRGC will exercise control over a huge swath of the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman - including the entire Strait of Hormuz - far exceeds the provisions of this statement.

In the end, the Iranians and Omanis will have to allow free passage - the legal term is "right of transit" - through the Strait with no tolls or fees. If Iran attempts to enforce a contrary interpretation, it would almost certainly invite a direct challenge from the United States and possibly other maritime powers.

"Is My Daughter an American Citizen?"

 

American and Saudi Passports

Let's talk about "birthright citizenship.”

The recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling affirming absolute birthright citizenship has generated considerable discussion on both sides of the issue. I have my own views, but it is not germane to this discussion of birthright citizenship.

It is January 17, 1991. Operation Desert Shield – the defense of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia – has transformed into Operation Desert Storm, the campaign to liberate the State of Kuwait. Throughout the night, hundreds of coalition aircraft pound targets in Baghdad and other key locations in Iraq.  

Before dawn the next morning, the Iraqis responded with al-Husayn ballistic missile attacks on Riyadh, Dhahran, and Israel. The war was on.

The atmosphere in Saudi Arabia had changed dramatically over the previous five months.

Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990. Four days later, President George H.W. Bush ordered American forces to Saudi Arabia. The lead elements—the "division-ready" brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division and the U.S. Air Force's 1st Tactical Fighter Wing—arrived on August 7.

In those months leading up to the war, we American troops spent a lot of time working alongside Saudi officers. When not interpreting for General Schwarzkopf, I worked in the in the Coalition Coordination, Communications, and Integration Center (C3IC). I had become close to several of the Saudi officers—they were intrigued with any American or Westerner who had learned their language.

Watching the change in their demeanor from our arrival in August to the attack on Iraq was fascinating. Many of the officers I came to know had grown up in relative privilege and had never imagined that their country might face a direct military threat. As tensions mounted and the coalition buildup accelerated, some quietly began looking for a safety net—a way out should the worst happen.

One afternoon, a Royal Saudi Air Defense Force brigadier with whom I had become friends, approached me and asked if we could speak in private.

Once alone in his office, he asked whether it was true that people born in the United States were automatically American citizens. I told him that I believed that to be true in most cases.

He explained that years earlier as a young officer, he had attended the U.S. Army Air Defense Artillery School at Fort Bliss, Texas. While there, his wife had given birth to their daughter at the post’s hospital. He wanted to know if his daughter was, in fact, a U.S. citizen.

Not being an immigration lawyer, I contacted a friend in the Consular Section of U.S. Embassy in Riyadh explained the situation. Her first question surprised me – did he have diplomatic status?

I hadn't even considered that. I asked the brigadier whether he had been assigned to the Saudi Embassy or had any form of diplomatic accreditation while he was in the United States. He had not. He had simply been a military student attending training at an Army post in Texas.

My friend at the Embassy clarified for me. If he had enjoyed diplomatic immunity, neither he nor his wife would have been “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, a key requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment. As a foreign military officer attending school in the United States, he and his wife were fully subject to American civil and criminal law. Their daughter therefore acquired U.S. citizenship at birth.

Although she had been eligible since birth, her parents had never applied for documentation, not thinking that it would ever be needed.

Within a month, I had arranged for her U.S. passport, and presented it to her father along with an American flag. His smile said everything - he invited me to his office for “tea.” If you've ever served in Saudi Arabia, you know exactly what that means. 

_____

Note: Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion of the Fourteenth Amendment. Under his interpretation, the daughter may not have acquired U.S. citizenship at birth since her father was posted in the United States on a temporary basis. I get it, but it felt good to be able to do this for the brigadier and his daughter.

Abdul Carter - What's in a name?

 

Abdul Carter and Jason Dart

Let's talk about "Abdul Carter." 

There was a bit of controversy over New York Giants quarterback Jason Dart. Carter criticized Dart for introducing President Trump at a rally - not that it is any of Carter's business.

I was struck by the name Abdul Carter. I have been dealing with this for decades, mostly among young men who claim to have converted to Islam. 

During Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, there was a team of Saudi imams (we called them the God Squad) who would roam the joint commannd center and target Americans for conversion, including me, with offers of money, trips, gifts. They assumed that because I could speak Arabic, I would be a potential convert. I didn't take the time to explain that we in the intelligence services normally learn the languages of our potential foes....

Many of these converts take on what they think are Muslim names. I am not sure if Carter is a convert or was born into a Muslim family. In any case, I would recommend that they learn either a smattering of the Arabic language, or the concept of the 99 attributes of Allah.

Abdul cannot stand alone as a name. 

It is actually the word 'Abd (meaning "servant of") and the Arabic definite article al- (meaning "the"). It is followed by one of the attributes of Allah. 

So when I am introduced to a new convert, and he says his name is "Abdul" - I ask him "'Abd al- WHAT?" Virtually every time, I get a blank stare. This is when I cease to take them seriously. Although I am not a Muslim, I generally know more about it than they do. 

So, in deference to either Carter or his parents, I will acknowledge that his middle name is Jabbar (meaning "the compellor" or "the almighty") - the same as the basketball legend Karim Abdul Jabbar. As with both, the correct transliteration of the Arabic ( عبد الجبار ) would be 'Abd al-Jabbar. It is not a first and middle name, or a middle name and last name - it is one name. 

In the Middle East, if you introduce yourself as Abdul, you will get a puzzled look meaning 'Abd al- WHAT?