That has always ben the case, as early as the 1620s as Corantos. A first-hand battlefield datelines and updates on the war. It is a little bit disappointing as they were a stronger setting of what was to be than what the media gives us now in 2026 in the Iran settings. Headlines like ‘Iran bets Trump will blink first’ and ‘‘We’re beating them up’, Trump on fresh Iran strikes’ and lets not forget ‘U.S. insists Strait of Hormuz remains open despite Iran declaring it closed, as strikes escalate’ all less then three hours ago. So, what is the measure of a war? But I am sitting in a setting with a headline 6 hours ago. We were given ‘The Guardian view on Trump and Tehran: everyone loses when the US and Iran overplay their hands’ and I say firmly ‘No!’
You see, the media is part of this mess. When they decided to reject the evidence from Brigadier General Turki al-Maliki on the drones from the Houthi terrorists (supplied by Iran), which clearly showed that Iran was behind this all. As you ignored evidence of an attack on Aramco, whilst blatantly ignoring that Houthi forces did not have the ability to expertly drive drones 10 times into Aramco targets, simply ignoring that this required high knowledge of drone aviation, only found in a state operator like the IRGC. You pretty much tailored your own demise from September 14th, 2019 onwards showing others that you were so dependent on the digital dollar, that you catered to its infliction of whatever drove clicks best.
This is a stage the media catered to and whilst we see other things evolve, they cater to what drives clicks. The media has lost its footing, its credibility and now they are catering to the populist voices. And in all this I might be wrong (my nautical knowledge is almost half a century old) we see “Under international law, Iran does not have the legal right to completely close or block the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping, although it has used military force to heavily restrict and control traffic. The strait is governed by the regime of “transit passage” under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which guarantees that all civilian ships have the right of uninterrupted navigation” (source: Opinio Juris) but the larger setting is that any water has optionally two parties.
The Straight of Hormuz borders Oman as well, as such there is a stretch that is Omanian territory, so in my naive setting I would say that the ships go via the Omanian part of the strait. I might be oversimplifying this, because Iran would have to attack Omanian waters and in that setting all parties including the GCC could attack Iran for violating their rights. I know I am missing a few settings, but this is what seems to be possible and if the media did their work, even if it is debunking my idea it might have been fine. But they did not did they?
So whilst the media seems to have dug its own Grave by adhering to proxy wars and for the benefit of access they might have silenced a few items (allegedly), we see an incomplete picture and we are thrusted towards headlines based on the old premise she said vs she said and as far as I can see this, this is all that is left to read.
So what is the real deal? That is the question and in the meantime Iran does what it deserves best, wield the stick of terror over all the lands and I see that these warring parties are ignoring what gives Iran power to act, as such the destruction of their harbours their railroads and their refineries could have been a solution when I gave it 4 months ago. It almost seems like the United States doesn’t want to win, merely drag this setting along. Why?
Well that is all I have at the moment, as such you all have a great day today.
Lawrence van Rijn - Law Lord to be 