Strait of Hormuz Showdown: A Desperate Gamble by Iran?

The recent saber-rattling from Tehran has raised eyebrows around the world, as Iranian state-linked media channels suggest that the country could charge US tech giants to use internet cables traversing the strategic strait of Hormuz. This proposal appears to be a clever play on international law, citing Article 34 of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

However, this is more than just a clever maneuver – it’s a desperate gamble by a country feeling increasingly isolated. The idea, as floated by Tasnim and Fars, would see Iran charge licence fees to use the subsea cables, require companies like Meta, Google, Amazon, and Microsoft to operate under Iranian law, and monopolize repair and maintenance services.

Iran’s reliance on a dubious interpretation of international law is striking. While Article 34 does grant coastal states rights over adjacent seabed areas, it’s far from clear that this applies in the strait of Hormuz. The 1982 Convention is notoriously complex, and any attempt to apply it to this specific situation would require some creative lawyering.

The cables in question don’t terminate in Iran – they pass under the sea, miles offshore. This makes it difficult for Tehran to extract tolls from individual companies, raising questions about how such fees would be collected. Even if one were to accept Iran’s interpretation, there are still significant hurdles to overcome.

Beyond the technicalities, the geopolitics of the region are far too complex for this proposal to have any real chance of success. As Doug Madory, an expert in internet infrastructure, notes: “The only way they could extract tolls for ships or submarine cables is through threats.” And that’s precisely what Iran is doing – using the threat of disrupting global internet traffic as a bargaining chip.

Egypt does charge fees on subsea cables that pass through its territory, and has even jointly owned and operated some cables with Telecom Egypt. However, there’s a crucial difference: these cables actually cross Egyptian soil, not just pass under the sea miles offshore.

The implications of Iran’s proposal are far-reaching. If Tehran were to follow through on this threat, it could have significant consequences for global internet traffic – particularly in the Gulf region. While the cables under the strait of Hormuz mostly serve regional countries like Iraq and Iran, a cut or disruption here could still cause significant problems.

The real question is what would happen next? Would US tech giants be willing to pay the fees demanded by Tehran, or would they instead choose to reroute their traffic elsewhere? And what about the repair ships that maintain these cables – would they take the risk of operating in a war zone?

It seems highly unlikely that Iran’s proposal will come to fruition. However, even if it doesn’t, the fact that Tehran is considering such a move says volumes about the country’s desperation and frustration with its current situation. It’s a sign that the US-Israel axis has pushed Iran into a corner, and that the consequences of further escalation are starting to become clear.

The world will be watching as this saga unfolds – and it won’t take long for us to see who blinks first in this high-stakes game of brinksmanship.