Skip to content
You can now search across every topic, entity and event.What's new
Iran Conflict 2026
3SEP

France and Japan file flag-state protests

2 min read
16:40UTC

France and Japan lodged formal flag-state protests after CMA CGM Kribi and Mitsui OSK Sohar LNG appeared on Trump's 12 April toll-interdiction list, a provision CENTCOM left out of its operational order.

ConflictDeveloping
Key takeaway

Two G7 allies are formally protesting a presidential post CENTCOM has already chosen not to enforce.

France and Japan lodged formal flag-state protests after the French-flagged CMA CGM Kribi and the Japanese-flagged Mitsui OSK Sohar LNG appeared on Donald Trump's 12 April toll-interdiction list . Both vessels had previously paid Iran's Hormuz toll in yuan, which was the trigger for their inclusion on the list. CENTCOM's operational order for the 13 April blockade omitted the toll-interdiction provision entirely, leaving both vessels off the US Navy's target list despite their appearance on the president's.

That is the gap the protests sit in. France and Japan are treating a Truth Social post naming specific G7-flagged merchant vessels as a formal US position requiring a formal reply, because UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) obliges the flag state to defend its registered ships against threats of boarding. The protests invoke the convention implicitly: the president has named their vessels for interdiction, the named vessels' flag states have an obligation to protest, and the formal protest goes onto the bilateral record regardless of whether CENTCOM is acting on the posted order.

The practical asymmetry is that Paris and Tokyo are responding to a document, the presidential post, that has no corresponding signed instrument and no implementing order from the commanding combatant command. French and Japanese diplomats are negotiating against a text the US executive branch has not formally produced. For the flag states, that is still the text they must answer. For CENTCOM, the operational order it self-generated continues to exclude toll-paying vessels from interdiction, and the diplomatic protests have no effect on the operational mandate because the mandate already omits the action being protested.

The instrument gap that defines the whole operation surfaces here with unusual clarity. Two G7 allies are in formal protest against an executive order that both exists (on Truth Social) and does not exist (as a signed presidential instrument), enforced by a command that has chosen not to implement its most aggressive provision. Each party is reading a different authoritative text. The protests are now on the bilateral record; the interdictions they protest have not happened; the social-media post that triggered them remains the only American document any party can cite.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

France and Japan have filed formal diplomatic complaints with the United States after two of their ships appeared on a list of vessels President Trump threatened to intercept. The two ships, the CMA CGM Kribi (French-flagged) and the Mitsui OSK Sohar LNG (Japanese-flagged), had previously paid Iran's transit toll to pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Trump posted on social media that all ships that had paid Iran's toll would be stopped by the US Navy. France and Japan, as the countries whose flags the ships fly, are legally required to defend their vessels under international maritime law, so they lodged formal protests. Here is the strange part: the US Navy never actually received orders to stop those ships. CENTCOM, the US military command running the blockade, left the toll-paying provision out of its orders entirely. So France and Japan are officially protesting against a presidential social-media post that the US military has already decided not to enforce. This shows, in the most concrete possible way, how the absence of a signed presidential order is creating confusion: two close US allies are in formal diplomatic dispute with America over an order that exists only as a post, enforced by a military that has chosen to ignore that particular part of it.

First Reported In

Update #68 · Sanctioned tankers slip the blockade

Reuters / Free Malaysia Today· 14 Apr 2026
Read original
Different Perspectives
China's foreign ministry
China's foreign ministry
Spokesman Lin Jian rejected Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's 25 August warning that Iranian oil buyers face an "economic D-Day", saying sanctions do not help and that Beijing would safeguard its own rights and interests. China's Iranian crude imports had already halved for unrelated reasons.
Iraq's government and Erbil authorities
Iraq's government and Erbil authorities
Erbil authorities said 10 explosive-laden drones were shot down over the city on 1-2 September with no casualties. Iraq's government condemned the attacks without naming Iran as their source, and neither Washington nor Baghdad confirmed the IRGC's claim to have hit US bases there.
Bahrain Defence Force
Bahrain Defence Force
The General Command said air defences intercepted several Iranian missiles and drones on 1-2 September and called the use of such weapons against civilians and private property a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law.
Kuwait's Fire Force and foreign ministry
Kuwait's Fire Force and foreign ministry
KUNA reported a hostile Iranian drone struck a residential complex in Kuwait City on 2 September; Fire Force spokesman Brigadier General Mohammad Al-Gharib said losses were confined to property. Kuwait's foreign ministry called the attack a clear breach of its sovereignty.
Jordan's Armed Forces
Jordan's Armed Forces
Petra carried a statement that air defences intercepted eight missiles violating Jordanian airspace early on 31 August and 10 of 13 fired on 1 September. The statement named no target and did not address the IRGC's claim to have struck Camp Titin and killed US personnel.
CENTCOM
CENTCOM
CENTCOM's 1 September target list named IRGC air defence, radar, maritime and mine-laying sites in Iran but no tanker, after Axios reported anonymous officials describing a Trump-approved "tanker for tanker" drone policy. A CENTCOM spokesman declined to confirm the policy and referred questions to policymakers.