Yes, as long as the premises has mission status. That Article says nothing about needing a good reason to revoke mission status (nor, of course, does it define a good reason).
> If the nation can simply revoke diplomatic status arbitrarily that clause
> would become meaningless
No more so than diplomatic immunity of mission staff is meaningless simply because the host country can arbitrarily terminate it by declaring them persona non grata, at any time and for any reason. The Convention is explicit about that - and yet countries don't tend to exercise this power lightly, either.
I'd also cite this Article in response to your later argument, that countries usually aren't allowed to assert rights which would effectively nullify treaties.
> But the
> fact other nations don't just arbitrarily revoke diplomatic status of
> Embassies even when it is in their self-interest to so indicates some sort
> of fear of setting a long term precedent.
That's exactly my point. It's the concern about precedents, and the principle of reciprocity, that prevents countries acting arbitrarily to revoke status - not the fact that they are legally prohibited from doing so.
>> No, though I quoted the relevant passage. But it certainly is supporting
> evidence. At least one expert on international law quoted in the above link
> seems to disagree with you.
I don't actually see any quotes from him in that article that disagree with me.
> Well have not heard that yet, but if so it seems to support that it is not
> as clear as you seem to think that they have the right to do it.
Or possibly they just don't think this case is worth setting off a tit-for-tat over.