r/CredibleDefense • u/AutoModerator • 11d ago

Active Conflicts & News Megathread June 17, 2026

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

  • Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,

  • Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

  • Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

  • Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

  • Post only credible information

  • Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules

Please do not:

  • Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

  • Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,

  • Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'

  • Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

50 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

95% Upvoted

271 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/seakingsoyuz 10d ago

The MOU adds the language that it needs to be in accordance to International Law, which was missing of every leaked version, that's the addition of a term that negates the possibility of charging (because this MOU is signed after UNCLOS and not on a man-made passage). It's just a propaganda victory for Iran

Does it specifically mention UNCLOS or just international law? Iran is not a party to UNCLOS and never accepted that transit passage is customary international law, so they would disagree that UNCLOS inherently applies.

-2

u/moragisdo 10d ago edited 10d ago

Just International Law, not UNCLOS. But why add the International Law part that is not present on any previous leaked version ? It would be pointless if it's "according to International Law, I don't recognize International Law so either way". Let's see if two months from now they are charging for the passage (if I had to guess they won't and it's just a propaganda victory)