〓慣習国際法上､平時における領海の無害通航権や(公海·EEZと公海·EEZを繋ぐ)国際海峡の通過通航権が認められており､イラン領海といえども無害通航を不当に妨害すればイランは国際不法行為責任を負う｡

〓これに対しイランは戦時の抗弁権を前面に押し出して海峡封鎖を正当化｡

https://gyazo.com/e0d6288cfb6107b289db4512387b8617

〓もっともホルムズ海峡封鎖は北岸のイランだけで遂行できるものではなく､南岸に位置するオマーンの協力が欠かせない｡



＞ホルムズ海峡の北岸はイランだが、南岸(ムサンダム半島)はオマーンの飛び地である。そして、大型船舶やタンカーが通航する深水海路(航路)の大部分はオマーンの領海内にある。



〓これまで殆ど国際社会の注目を浴びて来なかったオマーンであるが､何故ここまで偏狭なシーア派原理主義に執着するイランと歩調を合わせてイランのホルムズ海峡封鎖に加担し国際社会を敵に回そうとするのか？

https://gyazo.com/99facc43173539099489d25fdea6bca8

〓これに対しネット上では以下のようにオマーンを擁護する見方が流布：



＞オマーンの基本姿勢は「イランが暴発して海峡を完全に火の海にすることを防ぐため、対話の窓口を維持する」ことにあります。　
＞イランの封鎖に「加担」しているというよりは、イランを国際社会（あるいは武力衝突）から軟着陸させるための独自の交渉を行っていると見るのが従来のオマーン外交の文脈に合致します｡



しかし その一方で､以下のような歴とした事実もある：

①最新の研究によれば、2026年の海峡封鎖で湾岸諸国は甚大な損害を受けた一方､オマーンはほぼ影響を受けず､むしろ“戦争特需”で収入が増えた**と分析されている。

②イランは国連海洋法条約（UNCLOS）に署名しているものの正式には批准していないが､オマーンは1989年に同条約を批准しているにも拘わらず､ホルムズ海峡の「国際海峡」としての位置づけを認めず、自国領海に対する完全な主権行使を主張｡

https://gyazo.com/bbec768b96bef7e3f061030001bf2529

〓幾らイランが自国領海に対する排他的主権を唱えて領海内に機雷を敷設したり､無人機やミサイルで無害通航を妨害したとしても､大型船舶やタンカーが通航するホルムズ海峡の深水海路(航路)の大部分がオマーンの領海内にあるのであれば､ホルムズ海峡の封鎖は不可能である｡

〓オマーンは1989年に国連海洋法条約(UNCLOS)を批准しており､国際海峡の通過通航権を認める明白な責任を負っている｡

〓オマーンさえ通過通航権に関する国際法を遵守していれば､イランのホルムズ海峡封鎖は不可能となる筋合いだ｡

https://gyazo.com/93e262b29eeab716d5d82a49715f596c

〓「イランが暴発して海峡を完全に火の海にすることを防ぐため、対話の窓口を維持する」ことがオマーンの基本的立場というネット上に溢れる見解は何だか､狂人ヒットラーのナチス·ドイツが暴発して占領地のオランダ､ベルギー､フランスで過度に非人道的な行動に走るのを防ぐために､ムッソリーニのイタリアと東条英機の日本が敢えて狂人ヒットラーのナチス·ドイツと反米·極右軍事同盟という対話の窓口を維持していると言ってるのに等しいのではないか｡

〓そんな詭弁でムッソリーニのイタリアと東条英機の日本が狂人ヒットラーのナチス·ドイツと反米·極右軍事同盟を結んで連合国に反抗した一連の軍事行動を正当化できる筈もなく､空々しいだけだ｡

〓イランのホルムズ海峡封鎖に協力するオマーンの行動は､狂人ヒットラーのナチス·ドイツと反米·極右軍事同盟を結んだムッソリーニのイタリアや東条英機の日本とは全然違うのだと国際社会を説得する説明責任をオマーンは負っているのではないか｡

https://gyazo.com/819de6e37670c269817f432322b82a18

＞■ Under customary international law, foreign vessels enjoy the right of innocent passage through territorial seas in peacetime, as well as the right of transit passage through international straits connecting one area of the high seas or an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) with another. Accordingly, even if the waters are part of Iran's territorial sea, Iran would incur international responsibility for a wrongful act if it unjustifiably interfered with innocent passage.

■ Iran, however, seeks to justify its closure of the Strait by placing primary emphasis on its claimed right of self-defense during wartime.

■ Nevertheless, a closure of the Strait of Hormuz cannot be accomplished by Iran alone from the northern shore; the cooperation of Oman, which controls the southern shore, is indispensable.

«Although the northern shore of the Strait of Hormuz belongs to Iran, the southern shore (the Musandam Peninsula) is an exclave of Oman. Moreover, most of the deep-water shipping lane used by large commercial vessels and oil tankers lies within Omani territorial waters.»

https://gyazo.com/aaad02967c934e58d14b4226e6dde48e

■ Oman has long remained largely outside the international spotlight. Why, then, would it choose to align itself so closely with Iran—a state deeply committed to a rigid form of Shiite fundamentalism—and risk alienating the international community by facilitating Iran's blockade of the Strait of Hormuz?

■ In response, the following argument has become widespread online in defense of Oman:

«Oman's fundamental policy is to maintain channels of dialogue with Iran in order to prevent Tehran from acting recklessly and turning the Strait into a full-scale war zone. Rather than "assisting" Iran's blockade, Oman is pursuing its own diplomatic efforts to steer Iran toward a peaceful accommodation with the international community—or at least to prevent military confrontation. This interpretation is consistent with Oman's long-established diplomatic tradition.»

https://gyazo.com/9b6c88449d79e1b024fe69b8bee50020

However, there are also several well-established facts that deserve attention:

(1) According to recent research, while the 2026 blockade of the Strait inflicted enormous economic damage on the Gulf states, Oman was affected very little and, in fact, reportedly benefited economically from the wartime surge in demand.

(2) Although Iran has signed the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), it has never formally ratified it. Oman, by contrast, ratified UNCLOS in 1989. Nevertheless, Oman does not recognize the Strait of Hormuz as an "international strait" and instead asserts full sovereign authority over its territorial waters.

■ Even if Iran claims exclusive sovereignty over its territorial sea and attempts to obstruct innocent passage by laying naval mines or using drones and missiles, a complete blockade of the Strait of Hormuz would be impossible if most of the deep-water shipping lane used by large commercial vessels and oil tankers lies within Omani territorial waters.

https://gyazo.com/97eaa37139f1c15a56b183f430d1c046

■ Oman ratified UNCLOS in 1989 and therefore bears a clear obligation to recognize and respect the right of transit passage through international straits.

■ If Oman simply complied with international law governing transit passage, Iran's blockade of the Strait of Hormuz could not be effectively enforced.

■ The widely circulated online argument that Oman's basic policy is merely to "maintain channels of dialogue with Iran in order to prevent it from recklessly turning the Strait into a sea of fire" seems comparable to claiming that Fascist Italy under Benito Mussolini and Japan under Hideki Tojo deliberately maintained an anti-American, far-right military alliance with Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany in order to restrain Hitler from committing even more inhumane acts in the occupied Netherlands, Belgium, and France.

■ Such sophistry could never have justified the military alliance between Mussolini's Italy, Tojo's Japan, and Hitler's Nazi Germany, nor the series of military operations they conducted against the Allied Powers. It would have rung hollow then, just as it does now.

https://gyazo.com/37deb7be40e1d4e10aab786bae33aa99

■ If Oman's conduct in cooperating with Iran's blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is fundamentally different from the conduct of Mussolini's Italy and Tojo's Japan in aligning themselves militarily with Hitler's Nazi Germany, then does Oman not bear the burden of explaining to the international community why the two situations should be regarded as materially different?