The ship was boarded and detained because it had collided with an Iranian vessel. The seizure was also an act of retaliation against the US, which had previously confiscated an oil cargo from Iran. Thus, the move was more political than business-related.
The banning of ships traveling to Iran was actually put in place by insurance companies and protection and indemnity (P&I) clubs. These groups issued the policy, manipulated by the US and the European Union, to embargo oil from Iran, Venezuela and, more recently, Russia.
Ship operators whose insurance and P&I are managed by the groups above, all US or EU/UK companies, must follow the directives not to dock in Iranian ports if they want to keep their coverage.
It can also be inferred that they are not to be allowed to transport commodities from Iran, in this case, crude oil and processed oil products. From the insurance business perspective and P&I point of view, this ban is considered extraordinary.
Regardless of the type of threat, the two businesses must have prepared plans for vessel owners or operators, commonly known as the warzone cover. Regardless of the massive threats to vessels – in this case, war – ship owners and operators can still navigate ports in the regions adjacent to ongoing hostilities.
Read: Damaged Roads And Public Transport Services
If a vessel is hit by a missile, the losses will be covered by the insurance or P&I. Therefore, the most an insurer can do is to issue a warning or a notice, not a prohibition. Yet, in the case of Iran, they issued a ban on entering the country’s waters, with a threat to cancel ship owners’ and operators’ insurance coverage.
Hence, it will be more appropriate if the complaint about the banning of Indonesian vessels from entering Iranian waters is directed at the insurance companies or P&I in the US, Europe and the UK. At the same time, a strong protest should be aimed at the policy, not at the President of Iran.