Skip to content
You can now search across every topic, entity and event.What's new
Iran Conflict 2026
21SEP

France and Japan file flag-state protests

2 min read
15:34UTC

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
Shipping and insurance industry
Shipping and insurance industry
UKMTO counted about 20 US-facilitated Hormuz transits a day to 11 September against only 6 visible on AIS, with traffic still around 90% below the 138-a-day pre-war baseline. War-risk underwriters cannot price hulls they cannot see, or resolve whether the tanker El Gaia hit a mine, as Iran claims, or a missile and drone, as CENTCOM says.
European refiners
European refiners
European refiners, including Poland's Orlen, absorbed a roughly $26 gap between Dated Brent at $130.80 on 15 September and ICE Brent futures settling at $103.87 on 18 September, a spread that widened from $13.45 on 9 September rather than newly opening. Their futures hedges no longer cover what they now pay for physical barrels.
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Aramco zeroed European term customers' October allocations and rerouted roughly 60 million barrels to Asia through Ras Tanura and Sohar, using Red Sea and Gulf terminal capacity built years ago to cut Hormuz exposure. Riyadh reallocated existing supply rather than negotiating a shortfall with Europe.
Qatar
Qatar
Qatar's energy minister Saad al-Kaabi told Bloomberg at the Qatar Economic Forum on 20 September that Bessent's two-year Hormuz-obsolescence forecast is wrong, and that Doha has deliberately built no bypass pipeline. Qatar's gas exports run through one waterway by choice, not oversight.
Iran (foreign ministry and Majlis)
Iran (foreign ministry and Majlis)
Iran's foreign ministry and 130 Majlis deputies moved toward NPT withdrawal this week, with lawmaker Hossein-Ali Haji Deligani filing a triple-urgency bill on 20 September that Speaker Qalibaf has not yet scheduled. Tehran treats treaty membership as leverage still on the table, not yet spent.
Russia and China
Russia and China
Moscow and Beijing vetoed the Panel of Experts' renewal, maintaining Resolution 2231 lapsed in October 2025 and the 2025 snapback was never validly triggered, so the sanctions architecture the Panel enforces has no current legal standing. Both governments frame the veto as upholding law, not shielding Tehran.