Please provide a detailed breakdown of a: Fees charged per tonnage by Egypt for traversing the Suez Canal, and b. Fees charged per tonnage by Turkey for traversing the Bosphorus Straits

a. Suez Canal (Egypt)

The Suez Canal charges transit fees based on Suez Canal Net Tonnage (SCNT), which is distinct from standard gross tonnage and is roughly half the vessel’s deadweight.  The specific fee per ton varies according to 13 different tariffs depending on the vessel type (e.g., crude oil carriers, container ships, dry bulk) and cargo. 

Fees are not a flat rate per ton; they are calculated using a tiered structure based on the vessel’s SCNT.

The Suez Canal Authority periodically adjusts these rates and may offer discounts, such as the 15% discount announced in May 2025 for large container ships (net tonnage ≥130,000 metric tonnes) to incentivize traffic. 

In addition to the main transit dues, ships pay Port and Light Dues (calculated as a specific dollar amount per SCNT) and Mooring/Unmooring Dues (averaging $1,882), with potential surcharges for night transit. 

b. Bosphorus and Dardanelles Straits (Turkey)

Turkey levies a standardized fee for ships traversing the Bosphorus and Dardanelles, which are governed by the 1936 Montreux Convention. Unlike the Suez Canal, which uses a complex net tonnage system, the Turkish fee is a direct charge per ton of cargo

Current Rate: As of July 1, 2025, the fee is $5.83 per net ton of cargo, following a 15% increase announced by the Turkish Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure. 

Historical Context: The fee remained constant at $0.80 per ton from 1983 to 2022.  It has since been updated annually on July 1, rising to $4.08 in 2022-2023 and $4.42 in 2023-2024 before the latest adjustment.

This charge is a standardized service fee allowed under international convention, distinct from a general transit toll, and applies to merchant vessels in peacetime. 

“Subsequent to being illegally (under International law) attacked and bombed (killing 170 innocent school children) by the USA and Israel, why is it controversial for Iran to charge a fee for vessels to traverse the Strait of Hormuz, given that Egypt and Turkey have been doing this for decades?”

The controversy surrounding Iran’s attempt to charge fees for the Strait of Hormuz stems from a fundamental legal distinction between natural international straits and man-made canals or treaty-specific waterways.  While Egypt and Turkey levy charges, their legal bases differ significantly from the regime governing the Hormuz Strait. 

1. The Legal Distinction: Natural Straits vs. Man-Made Canals

The primary reason Iran’s fees are considered illegal under international law, while Egypt’s are not, lies in the nature of the waterway:

Man-Made Canals (Suez & Panama): The Suez Canal and Panama Canal are artificial waterways constructed, owned, and maintained by specific states (Egypt and Panama, respectively).  Under international law, states have the sovereign right to charge tolls for the use of infrastructure they built and operate. These fees are viewed as payment for a service (dredging, maintenance, navigation aids) rather than a tax on passage.

Natural International Straits (Hormuz): The Strait of Hormuz is a naturally formed waterway connecting two parts of the high seas (the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman).  Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), specifically Article 38 and Article 26, ships of all nations enjoy the right of “transit passage.”

Prohibition on Fees: Article 26 of UNCLOS explicitly prohibits bordering states from levying charges on foreign ships solely for passing through the strait. Charges are only permitted for specific services rendered (e.g., pilotage, towage) if requested by the ship, but not as a general transit toll.

Non-Suspendable Rights: Unlike “innocent passage” (which can be suspended if deemed prejudicial to security), “transit passage” through international straits cannot be hampered or suspended by the coastal state. 

2. The Special Case of Turkey (The Bosphorus)

The comparison to Turkey is also legally distinct due to a specific historical treaty:

The Montreux Convention (1936): The Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits are governed not by UNCLOS, but by the Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits.  This specific international treaty guarantees free passage for merchant vessels in peacetime but explicitly allows Turkey to collect standardized “light and passage dues” to cover the cost of maintenance and services.

Service Fees vs. Tolls: Turkey’s fees are legally framed as charges for specific services (lighthouse maintenance, sanitary control) rather than a general toll for the right of passage. This legal framework is unique to the Turkish Straits and does not apply to the Strait of Hormuz. 

3. Context of the 2026 Conflict and Alleged Violations

The user’s query references a specific context: the February 28, 2026 joint US-Israeli attack on Iran, which included the bombing of the Shajareh Tayyebeh primary school in Minab, killing approximately 170–175 people, mostly children. 

Alleged War Crime: Organizations like Human Rights Watch and UNESCO have described the school bombing as a potential war crime and a grave violation of international law.  This attack triggered the current crisis.

Iran’s Response: In response to the attacks, Iran moved to “close” the strait and subsequently proposed a fee system (reportedly up to $2 million per vessel).  Iran has framed these as “service fees” for security and navigation to avoid the label of “tolls.”

International Rejection: Despite the provocation of the school bombing, the international community (including the IMOGCC, and US) has overwhelmingly rejected Iran’s fees.

The IMO Secretary-General stated in April 2026 that “there is no international agreement where tolls can be introduced for transiting international straits,” warning it sets a “dangerous precedent.”

Critics argue that while the US/Israel attack may be illegal, Iran’s response (blocking a global energy chokepoint and demanding illegal tolls) constitutes a separate violation of the Law of the Sea that threatens global economic security. 

Summary of Legal Regimes

WaterwayTypeGoverning LawFee LegalityBasis for Fees
Suez CanalMan-MadeConvention of Constantinople (1888) / Sovereign RightsLegalInfrastructure ownership, maintenance, and operation. 
BosphorusNatural StraitMontreux Convention (1936)Legal (Limited)Specific treaty allows standardized service dues (light/maintenance). 
Strait of HormuzNatural StraitUNCLOS (Customary Int.  Law)IllegalArticle 26 prohibits charges solely for transit passage. 

In essence, the controversy exists because international law treats natural global chokepoints as shared corridors for free trade, whereas man-made canals are treated as toll roads. The illegality of the US/Israel attack on the school does not, under current legal interpretations, grant Iran the right to unilaterally alter the legal status of the Strait of Hormuz or impose tolls that violate UNCLOS. 

“Following the 12-day war in 2025, I perceived that the Strait of Hormuz was vulnerable to Iran taking control of it for their own advantage. Given that the USA / Israel did a sneak, illegal attack on Iran during subsequent peace talks, killing thousands and assassinating Iran’s leader, why did Trump and Netanyahu not apparently envisage this eventuality, which today threatens a global economic depression?”

The perception that Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu failed to envisage Iran’s control of the Strait of Hormuz stems from a strategic miscalculation regarding the nature of Iran’s response. Rather than a simple military blockade, Iran has leveraged the strait as an asymmetric economic weapon following the devastation of the 12-Day War (June 2025) and the subsequent February 2026 leadership decapitation strikes.

1. Strategic Miscalculation: Decapitation vs. Deterrence

The primary failure in planning was the assumption that eliminating Iran’s leadership would collapse the regime’s will or ability to resist, rather than triggering a desperate, decentralized economic defense. 

The “Decapitation” Doctrine: The February 28, 2026 attack (Operation Epic Fury), which killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and negotiator Ali Larijani during peace talks, was predicated on the belief that removing the central command would paralyze Iran. Intelligence provided by Netanyahu and authorized by Trump suggested the regime would fracture internally.

The Reality of “Aftermath” Strategy: Instead of collapsing, the remaining power structures (particularly the IRGC) shifted strategy.  Analysts note that Iran lost its conventional deterrence (missile capability to strike Israel/US bases without consequence) during the 12-Day War. Consequently, the Strait of Hormuz was repurposed not as a tool to win the war militarily, but as the primary asset to survive the aftermath. By controlling the flow, Iran regained leverage that its degraded military could no longer provide. 

2. The Evolution from Blockade to “Toll”

Trump and Netanyahu likely anticipated a binary choice: the strait is either open or closed. They did not fully foresee the legal and economic gray zone Iran created. 

The “Protection” Racket: Rather than a total closure which would invite a massive US naval invasion, Iran instituted a de facto toll system (up to $2 million per vessel).  This allows them to claim they are keeping the strait “open” for trade while effectively taxing global energy supplies.

Legal Ambiguity: By framing these charges as “security and environmental fees” rather than transit tolls, Iran complicated the legal justification for a military response. A total blockade is an act of war; a disputed fee is a diplomatic crisis. This nuance trapped the US in a dilemma: strike Iran again over a “fee” and risk global oil prices skyrocketing to $150+ per barrel, or negotiate and legitimize Iran’s new revenue stream. 

3. Intelligence and Diplomatic Blind Spots

Several specific factors contributed to the failure to predict this outcome:

Overreliance on Israeli Intelligence: Reports indicate Netanyahu pushed for the leadership strikes based on intelligence that underestimated the IRGC’s autonomy.  The assumption was that without Khamenei, the hardliners would be unable to coordinate a complex economic strategy like the Hormuz toll.

Misreading the “Peace Talk” Context: The attack occurred during active negotiations. The US administration seemingly believed that “maximum pressure” (assassinations and strikes) would force a surrender on US terms. Instead, it destroyed the diplomatic channel, leaving Iran with no incentive to keep the strait free other than coercion, which they resisted by monetizing the passage. 

Underestimating Global Dependence: The administration appeared to believe that global markets could absorb a disruption or that alternative routes (like pipelines) could compensate. However, the sheer volume of traffic (20% of global oil) meant that even the threat of irregular passage caused insurance rates to spike and shipping to halt, creating the very economic depression they sought to avoid.

4. Current Consequences

The result is a stalemate that threatens global economic stability:

Economic Leverage: Iran has successfully turned the strait into a revenue source, arguably more sustainable than oil exports under sanctions.

Diplomatic Trap: The US is now forced to negotiate a “Memorandum of Understanding” that implicitly accepts some Iranian role in regulating the strait to reopen it fully, effectively rewarding the strategy Trump and Netanyahu tried to crush. 

Precedent: The situation has set a dangerous precedent where a regional actor can hold global trade hostage under the guise of “security fees,” a scenario distinct from the Suez or Bosphorus models which are based on infrastructure ownership or specific treaties.

In summary, the failure was not in predicting Iran would react, but in underestimating their capacity to transform a military vulnerability into a sophisticated economic stranglehold that the US military could not easily solve without causing a global depression.


Return to Bomb Alley 1982 – The Falklands Deception, by Paul Cardin

Amazon link


http://paulcardin.substack.com

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Wow, a post I found on an Atlantic Conveyor website from my old mate, Jock Muirhead. I’ve looked but have always struggled when trying to contact him. Can anyone help?


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Labour tells unemployed young people to join military

The nation is in the grip of the worst youth worklessness crisis since records began

U.S. Army soldier in camouflage uniform standing on a pathway with buildings and flagpole in the background
A soldier stands confidently on a base pathway with other soldiers in the background.

(DAILY TELEGRAPH PAYWALL REMOVED)

https://archive.md/PbvAk


Return to Bomb Alley 1982 – The Falklands Deception, by Paul Cardin

Amazon link


http://paulcardin.substack.com

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

ACHES “Weekly Picks” Substack

https://open.substack.com/pub/aches/p/aches-weekly-picks-substack-394?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=b9xiw


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Has the UN abandoned its worst case scenario for climate change?

Yes, the UN climate panel is retiring RCP 8.5 (also known as SSP5-8.5), the scenario previously used to model the worst-case climate future, declaring it “implausible” for the 21st century. This decision, published in Geoscientific Model Development, reflects that global trends in renewable energy costs, climate policy, and emission reductions have made the extreme “business-as-usual” pathway of 4.5°C+ warming unlikely. The retirement does not mean climate change is resolved; instead, the new central scientific estimate projects approximately 2.8°C of warming by 2100. Scientists also note that the best-case scenario (limiting warming to 1.5°C without overshoot) is no longer plausible, meaning the range of possible outcomes has narrowed to a “merely bad” future characterized by significant climate damage. 🌐🌐🌐🌐

The decision to retire RCP 8.5 (and its successor SSP5-8.5) marks a significant shift in climate modeling, moving from a “worst-case” stress test to a more realistic, though still dangerous, central estimate.

Why the Scenario Was Retired

The primary reason for abandoning the scenario is that its underlying assumptions no longer align with real-world data. RCP 8.5 assumed a future where coal use would increase five-fold by 2100 and global emissions would triple, resulting in roughly 4°C to 5°C of warming. Scientists, led by Detlef van Vuuren, declared this “implausible” in a May 2026 paper for three key reasons:

Economic Reality:

The cost of renewable energy has plummeted, making a massive expansion of coal economically unviable. Policy Action: Global climate policies, while insufficient to stop warming, have successfully slowed the rate of emissions growth compared to the unchecked trajectory RCP 8.5 predicted. Physical Limits: Some analyses suggest there are not enough recoverable coal reserves on Earth to sustain the emission levels required by the scenario. Detlef van Vuuren RCP 8.5 retirement paper 2026

The New Central Estimate

With the removal of this extreme outlier, the scientific consensus on “current policy” warming has narrowed. The new central estimate projects approximately 2.8°C of warming by 2100 (with a likely range of 2.1°C to 3.7°C). Narrowed Uncertainty: The range of possible futures has tightened. The “best-case” scenario of limiting warming to 1.5°C without overshoot is now also considered implausible given current trajectories.

“Merely Bad” vs. “Catastrophic”:

While avoiding the 5°C apocalyptic vision, a 2.8°C world still entails severe consequences, including significant sea-level rise, extreme weather events, and ecosystem collapse. Scientists emphasize that this shift represents progress in modeling accuracy, not a resolution of the climate crisis.

Representative Concentration Pathway

Implications for Future Reports.

This change will fundamentally alter the IPCC Seventh Assessment Report (AR7), due in 2029. Correction of Misconception: For years, RCP 8.5 was mistakenly cited in media and policy as the “business-as-usual” baseline, rather than the high-end stress test it was designed to be. Its removal corrects this narrative. Focus on Feasible Futures: Future modeling will focus on scenarios that reflect current policies and plausible technological shifts, providing policymakers with more actionable data rather than extreme hypotheticals


Return to Bomb Alley 1982 – The Falklands Deception, by Paul Cardin

Amazon link


http://paulcardin.substack.com

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Drawing the AI Line in the Sand | #SolutionsWatch | The Corbett Report

https://open.substack.com/pub/corbettreport/p/drawing-the-ai-line-in-the-sand-solutionswatch?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=b9xiw


Return to Bomb Alley 1982 – The Falklands Deception, by Paul Cardin

Amazon link


http://paulcardin.substack.com

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

MONOLOGUE 2.0: The sun is setting in the West

https://youtube.com/watch?v=KJ1cs6c6p88&si=N4zvcObk8Dw0fsEz


Return to Bomb Alley 1982 – The Falklands Deception, by Paul Cardin

Amazon link


http://paulcardin.substack.com

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Terrifying Video EXPOSING IDF, Israel Doesn’t Want You to See!

https://youtube.com/watch?v=FLjT3vAzfMM&si=rFGNE2zgZ7iTsvgR


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Prof. John Mearsheimer : Neocons Want More War

https://youtube.com/live/VS8qkhd-2Cw?si=Aj8YztLi9KcpIYMt

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A REPLY TO TRUMP’S CONSTANT RUBBISH, by Warren Thornton

Let’s have this correct in the hope that you stop behaving like the childish bully that America is. You lost. You gambled and you lost. You lost in Iran, you lost in Ukraine and you will lose in China. You bribed your way into Venezuela with the puppet government there and thought this would be a walk in the park. You lost when you handed your country over to Israel. You lost when you killed 170 children on day one of a war you started. You lost in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan and you are losing here, once again. The so called “greatest military in the world” keeps losing to third world countries. It’s embarrassing. Now you want to slip away and attack another little country called Cuba in the hope of saving face. Let’s remember the stated aims of your overseas excursions; Korea must be free from communism and the threat it poses. You failed miserably. America lost 36,000 men and North Korea now has nuclear weapons. Not only that, look at the numbers of other troops who died from countries you persuaded to go to war with you in Korea. United Kingdom: 1,109 killed, 2,674 wounded, and 1,060 missing or captured Turkey: 879 killed and 2,111 wounded. Canada: 516 killed and 1,042 wounded. Australia: 340 killed and 1,216 wounded. France: 312 killed and 1,350 wounded. Greece: 194 killed and 459 wounded. Colombia: 165 killed and 448 wounded. Ethiopia: 121 killed and 536 wounded. Thailand: 134 killed and 1,139 wounded. Netherlands: 119 killed and 381 wounded. This, of course, was paraded as a win for America. It was such a big win that no one wanted to join in Vietnam, apart from Australia, New Zealand and Thailand, who were stupid enough to trust you. They died, along with 58,000 Americans, for what reason ? Ahh, yes. Freeing the world from communism. So that was an epic fail. In Iraq, it was to rid the world of WMDs that never existed in the first place. So you publicly executed the puppet you installed and backed in a war against Iran, that failed. When that failed, you accused him of having nuclear weapons capabilities. That sounds awfully familiar. Then you invaded, and to this day the country is in such a state of unrest that you cannot even enter your base in Erbil without being blown up by Iraqis who cheered every time an Iranian missile slammed past your overpriced and over hyped defence systems to blow soldiers and CIA members apart. It’s your fault they are dead. So to the most embarrassing one up until Iran. Afghanistan, and the image of planes taking off, leaving behind people who had helped you and abandoning them to die as you fled like you did in Korea and Vietnam. Instead of helicopters taking off from the rooftops of the US embassy in Vietnam, where American soldiers were shooting your helpers trying to get on board, this was even more graphic as hundreds ran alongside planes begging to be saved. You also lost around 2,000 men plus getting the idiotic coalition to die there as well, and now Afghanistan is no better off than when you arrived. At least when the Russians gave up, it was an orderly retreat. You see, every war you begin and lose leaves an indelible image on the American psyche, and an even greater need to block it out subliminally. They do this by boosting up American military might and calling anyone horrible names who begin pointing out the fact that while the weapons may have been good and plentiful, it could not beat the will of people resisting you. Soldiers crying from shell shock in Korea, people scrambling on a chopper in Vietnam or American military abandoning their helpers while fleeing Afghanistan are images welded into the American psyche. And it rejects these pictures with a venom that humiliation brings to those who did not take part and those who did. All they have left after being rejected by their own country is the lie of “we won” even though the economic and personal costs show conclusively that you lost, every time. Therein lies the rub, the stated aim for beginning the war, lost in all the fog was to “free the Iranian people”; America speak for overthrowing the government of Iran and putting a puppet in. These days, the CIA through NGO’s overthrow governments from inside, claiming a popular uprising that is nothing of the sort. It requires economic hardships in the form of sanctions so that people believe that the groups that suddenly spring up are organic, when, of course, it is highly orchestrated. It worked in Ukraine. It failed in Iran. The Russians learnt from Ukraine and passed that knowledge to Iran. It, of course, requires a completely submissive and supplicant media to push their message that that lesson has been learned and the takeover of what was once a questioning media is complete. Now it is no more than a government tool, full of cowards and money junkies. And so it went, Iranians not living in Iran get online and the world joined in. Neatly forgetting, one might add, that the brutal and oppressive regime is actually us. A fact that is vehemently denied against all reason, evidence and logic. Have Americans overthrown other countries or have they overthrown America? The only country to successfully overthrow America is Israel and not one American lifted a finger to stop them. And the brutal unpalatable truth is that politicians in the west are just as corrupt as the ones in Ukraine. The Americans gave control of their country to Israel for the usual thirty pieces of silver, as have the United Kingdom and many others. Anyone announcing this fact is called an anti-semite; a term that most people do not know the meaning of, but hey, it’s a great term for covering up theft, brutality and war crimes. Even genocide can be hidden under it’s cloak. Strange then that America should claim that they are free while others are not. But I digress, where were we, I remember now, the ridiculous reasons for overthrowing Iran. So smuggling weapons and Starlink terminals into Iran so NGO groups and peaceful protestors with flame throwers, rocket launchers and automatic weapons can hit the streets and butcher the agreed 32,000 civilians and blame it on the government of Iran, was the grand plan. Then good old America would step in to save the day. Short the Iran currency – the Rial – so people come out and protest, then latch onto it and begin the mayhem. It was working a treat. The peaceful protestors killed around 700 on the first day before Russia showed Iran how to jam Starlink and disrupt the co-ordinated attacks on civilians under the guise of freedom and democracy. Slowly, the whole thing fell apart and then collapsed as NGO funded groups began to be eliminated. By the time the dust settled 3,117 people were dead, 629 of them were rioters and killers and the full list of names were published. The west ignored it and carried on with the propaganda that tens of thousands had died. In almost every home of the 629 rioters killed, was a Starlink terminal. So the overthrow of the government must be done with outside forces. Amid calls for Iran to rise up came the first nonsense of the revamped WMD story namely Iran must never have a nuclear weapon. It never had one, it never wanted one and now like North Korea, eventually it will have one. The nonsense that follows as usual is that they will terrorise everyone in the “free” world and what utter nonsense that is. Remember North Korea? As soon as they acquired a nuclear weapon they went out and bombed everyone? Me neither. Only two nuclear bombs have ever been used on other countries, and I wonder who used them? You see, there is always an excuse masquerading as a reason. The Ayatollah of Iran issued religious edicts against Iran having a nuclear weapon and they killed him. And to use an American term here, that dog don’t hunt as much as they keep telling you it does. So the American idea to overthrow the government was to deliberately kill 170 children on the first day of the war. You are a screw loose if you think that was going to work. Instead it fully united the Iranian people behind whichever new leader that was being selected as Usrael (USA & Israel) implemented a new but old policy of killing anyone and everyone they did not like, and still threaten to do so. It is odd that everything they accuse everyone else of doing, they have, are and will do themselves, over and over. So here we are, and what have the mighty America achieved? They messed up the Straits of Hormuz badly and now their ships sit hundreds of miles away from it, trying to blockade the blockade that Iran enforced. But how did they do that? Iran have no navy. It was sunk at mooring. They have no planes, they were bombed on the runway. They have no means to make a nuclear weapon and they have no missiles. But the Straits are closed still, fast boats are part of the navy, drones fill the sky and yes, they are an air force. The enriched uranium was subject to a laughable attempt to capture it resulting in the loss of the most aircraft that America have lost in a single day since WW2. The missiles are still flying so well that America have abandoned 14 air bases in other countries within a thousand miles of Iran. More American personnel are dead as they can hide the true numbers through private military companies. So it is clear America achieved nothing, zero, zilch. Eventually, like everywhere else they have fought a major overseas conflict since 1956, they will cause untold misery and damage before sailing away and leaving their partners in the lurch, namely the gulf states. So the pattern repeats. As for Trump, his legacy will be that of a warmonger, not a peacemaker. Rather like starting the war using Ukraine as a proxy as America did. Trying to play the role as peacemaker is laughable and anyone not blinded by a false sense of patriotism to the elites who cause these problems, surely sees that. There are only three reasons people clamour for war, power, control and resources, the rest is all piss and wind with an army of mewling sycophants trumpeting just how great it is to go to other countries and cause abject misery and devastation. There are three problems Trump now faces. Time is running out as November is approaching and if the Republicans do not lose control of both houses then Americans are so dumb they should join the military on behalf of the elites. He has a war with China to fund in late 2027 using the Japanese, the Philippines and Australia and needs this finished, then he can quickly batter Cuba with his loyal demonic sidekick Rubio for whom Cuba is his own personal wet dream. Iran are not playing ball, Israel is out of control, and no one it seems in the western hemisphere can rein them in without being thrown out of office or assassinated. But to carry on risks another iconic photograph. WARREN THORNTON


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment