Piracy or Policy: What Was the US Action in Gulf of Oman?
News Desk
Islamabad: Serious legal and geopolitical questions have emerged following the United States Navy’s missile strike and seizure of the Iranian-flagged merchant vessel MV Tosca in the Gulf of Oman.
According to Donald Rothwell, a professor at Australian National University, the legality of the US action hinges largely on the exact location of the incident.
Speaking to Al Jazeera, Rothwell noted that the Gulf of Oman lies outside both the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, making jurisdiction a critical issue.
He emphasized that the key legal question is how close the vessel was to Iranian territorial waters at the time of the attack, particularly amid reports that the ship was attempting to enter an Iranian port.
“If the vessel was within Iran’s territorial waters, serious legal concerns would arise regarding the legitimacy of US actions,” Rothwell said, warning that Washington may resort to legal justifications to defend the seizure.
He suggested that the United States could frame the operation not as a military blockade, but as enforcement of economic sanctions. Such an argument, he explained, would allow the US to claim compliance with its domestic laws while avoiding accusations of violating international ceasefire arrangements.
Read More: https://thepenpk.com/us-israeli-attacks-on-iran-death-toll-number-of-injuries/
Legal analysts believe this distinction could trigger a broader debate under international maritime law, particularly if sanctions enforcement is used to justify actions that resemble a naval blockade.
Details of the Operation
The US military’s United States Central Command confirmed the operation, releasing video footage showing US Marines boarding and taking control of the vessel. The ship is now reportedly in full US custody.
US President Donald Trump stated that a guided missile strike targeted the ship’s engine room after it allegedly attempted to breach a US-imposed blockade. He added that the vessel, referred to as “Tuska”, had significantly slowed prior to the strike.
Marine tracking data indicates that the 900-foot container ship had reduced speed shortly before the attack.
Iran Condemns ‘Piracy’
Iranian authorities have strongly condemned the operation, calling it a clear violation of international law and existing ceasefire agreements.
Officials from Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya Headquarters stated that the vessel was a commercial ship traveling from China to Iran and accused US forces of disabling its navigation systems before seizing it.
Read More: https://thepenpk.com/world-eyes-islamabad-as-us-iran-peace-talks-near-next-phase/
Iran’s military described the incident as “piracy” and warned of retaliation, claiming that Iranian forces have already targeted some US vessels in response.
Iran’s ambassador to Pakistan, Reza Amiri Moqadam, criticized Washington’s actions, saying it is contradictory to violate international law while simultaneously pursuing diplomacy.
“As long as the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz continues, regional tensions will persist,” he warned.
Impact on Regional Stability
The incident has cast doubt over ongoing peace efforts reportedly brokered by Pakistan. Iranian state media has dismissed speculation about a second round of negotiations.
Meanwhile, Zahra Kharazmi, speaking to Al Jazeera, suggested that the United States may be using diplomatic engagement as a cover for military preparations.
She pointed to increased US military activity in the region, including the deployment of the USS Abraham Lincoln and intensified fighter jet operations in Iraqi airspace.
According to Kharazmi, the timing of the attack raises concerns in Tehran that Washington may be preparing for a broader military escalation.
Legal Debate Intensifies
Experts say the central issue remains unresolved: whether the US action was defensive, lawful enforcement of sanctions, or a violation of international maritime law.
With conflicting claims over the ship’s location at the time of the incident, the international community is closely monitoring developments. The determination of jurisdiction could ultimately decide whether the operation is viewed as legitimate enforcement—or an act of aggression.
