|
Little birds
Originally Posted by Mal Drop
(Post 12088699)
The Congressional Research Service has listed the 42 US aircraft lost or damaged so far during the war with Iran:
BV |
The US administration has unveiled its latest additions in regard to ongoing sanctions against Iran...
The Trump administration on Tuesday unveiled one of its broadest sanctions actions yet under its “Economic Fury” campaign, targeting more than 50 companies, individuals, and vessels tied to Iran’s shadow banking and shipping networks as Washington intensifies pressure on Tehran amid the ongoing Strait of Hormuz crisis. The U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions against Iranian exchange house Amin Exchange and a sprawling network of front companies accused of moving hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of sanctioned Iranian banks and petrochemical interests. Treasury also designated 19 vessels allegedly involved in transporting Iranian oil, LPG, methanol, naphtha, and petrochemicals to foreign buyers. “Iran’s shadow banking system facilitates the illicit transfer of funding for terrorist purposes,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in the announcement. “As Treasury systematically dismantles Tehran’s shadow banking system and shadow fleet under Economic Fury, financial institutions must be alert to how the regime manipulates the international financial system to wreak havoc.” (The four ships mentioned in the above are currently off or en-route to China according to AIS) |
Originally Posted by Mal Drop
(Post 12088699)
The Congressional Research Service has listed the 42 US aircraft lost or damaged so far during the war with Iran:
|
Today's updates for the Straits of Hormuz and Bab-el-Mandab, Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman ports and anchorages.....and another VLCC seized by the USN, Iran's political messaging using drones and NATO ponder about entering the fray if things are not settled with the Strait of Hormuz by July 2026
First up...the USN has seized a VLCC, Skywave, as she crossed the Indian Ocean close to Sri Lanka. Said to be under a false flag and part of the shadow fleet, she was on her way back to Khor Fakkan from Quingdao. She had been loaded with Iranian oil at Kharg Island before hostilities began The Wall Street Journal, in an exclusive report, is saying U.S. forces overnight seized an Iran-linked oil tanker while it was crossing the Indian Ocean. The Pentagon and U.S. commanders have not commented on the report, which was released by the newspaper on Tuesday afternoon. The tanker is being identified as the Skywave (302,481 dwt), a shadow fleet tanker operating under a false flag. Built in 2005, the vessel is listed by Equasis as sold in March 2025 to an unidentified buyer. The reported sale coincides with the United States imposing sanctions on the tanker, then known as Blue Gulf. OFAC imposed sanctions on United Tankers (Marshall Islands) and Lake View Ship Management Private Limited (India) on March 31, 2025, for their involvement in the Iranian oil trade. The U.S. at the time reported the tanker was registered in Palau. Equasis currently lists its registry as Comoros, a false flag, while other databases report the ship is now sailing under the flag of Botswana. https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....6e9520db6c.png More information here : Report: U.S. Navy Has Seized Third Iranian Shadow Fleet Tanker (Maritime Executive - May 19, 2026) NATO are in the midst of considering entering the fray to get the Strait of Hormuz dealt with if the stalemate continues into the summer. The French carrier Charles de Gaulle is in Djibouti along with her support ships. There are several other nations - both NATO and non-NATO who are repositioning ships into the area. NATO is discussing the possibility of helping ships pass through the blocked Strait of Hormuz if the waterway isn’t reopened by early July, according to a senior official in the military alliance. The idea has support from several members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, but doesn’t yet have the necessary unanimous support, said a diplomat from a NATO country. Both officials spoke on the condition of anonymity. Leaders from NATO countries will meet in Ankara July 7-8. “The political direction comes first, and then the formal planning happens after that,” said Alexus Grynkewich, NATO’s supreme allied commander Europe, when asked about the possibility at a Tuesday press conference. “Am I thinking about it? Absolutely.” Such a move would represent a shift in the military alliance’s strategy toward the US-Israeli war in Iran. Thus far, allies have insisted they would only be involved in the strait once fighting has stopped and they can form a broad coalition that includes many non-NATO countries. But economic woes are deepening, with the strait’s closure sending energy prices soaring and growth forecasts tumbling. Iran has been using drones as a way to send a political message to its neighbours in relation to their retaliative attacks on Iran......a little bit of "drone diplomacy" if you will. Drone attacks mounted on Gulf states by Iran (or by Iranian proxies) appear to be part of the messaging taking place between Iran and its Gulf adversaries, as negotiations in a more diplomatic format take place separately between Iran and the United States in Islamabad. Despite official denials, it now appears clear that both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have attacked infrastructure targets in Iran, in direct retaliation for Iranian attacks on similar targets in the Gulf countries. The Iranian attacks have often been quite accurate, targeting critical elements for example of oil and gas refining plants which are difficult to replace and which are critical to operational processes, rather than merely targeting structures which burn spectacularly without causing long-term damage. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have responded in kind, warning Iran in advance of what they are going to do, and why – so as to deter further Iranian attacks. This is a very different type of targeting regime than that employed by Israel and the United States, where the attack plan is shaped by strategic objectives. Iran has attempted to disrupt this pattern of attacks by using proxies in Iraq to execute these attacks on its behalf. It now has been confirmed by the UAE that the drones launched at the Barakah nuclear reactor complex approached from the west but were fired from Iraq, meaning that the Houthi distancing from the current phase of the conflict is continuing, which is good news for mariners in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. The drone attacks on Saudi Arabia and UAE (as mentioned up thread) have now been confirmed as coming from Iraq. Besides the Israeli bases within Iraq who could, potentially launch false flag operations against the Gulf States, there are also Iranian proxy organisations and militias. These organisations and militias are linked in varying degree to Houthi, Hezbollah and Hamas. These organisations and militias were originally formed to fight Daesh but with the almost demise of Daesh they have started to align with Iranian backed organisations instead with a view to destabilise the Gulf region in the event of conflict tween Israel, US and Iran. Some of these militia groups have, in the past, been responsible for attacks on US bases, embassies and other infrastructure. Ultimately these groups could be far more dangerous to both US / Israeli and Gulf States interests, not least due to their nomadic behaviour.
Several openly identify themselves as part of Iran’s so-called “Axis of Resistance” and have repeatedly threatened the US, Israel and Gulf states. So now onto the Straits, anchorages and ports. At time of writing there have been no incidents reported, the Straif of Hormuz seems to have some traffic movement this morning, the most it has shown for a few days https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....0dfbed5c91.png The Bab-el-Mandab Strait is free flowing and looking busy https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....6acef420c5.png The Persian Gulf ports and anchorages from Umm Qasr (Iraq) down to Doha (Qatar) are still very busy. Quite a bit of ship movements going on. Three of the larger ships that have been stuck since hostilities began are Ever Lovely, Ever Unicorn and Ever Lotus which are drifting on their anchors off the Dammam anchorage https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....93a9c58108.png https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....d68bea39f6.png https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....8283ca431e.png https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....09831adb2a.png The anchorages and ports from Mina Saqr down to Jebel Ali are again extremely congested with several close quarterd clusters of ships with their Iranian herders close by https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....2952185a2f.png Over of the other side, the Gulf of Oman.....Fujairah, Dibba and Khor Fakkan ports are all back in full action after being cleared of all shipping for the last few days, the anchorages for those ports along with Liwa, Sohar and Al Widyyat are all heavily congested once again https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....7d5b99307b.png There are no further updates on the crew status in regard to CMA CGM San Antonio at time of writing. That is it for now....more updates tomorrow |
Scarcely believable.
Days after Israeli strikes killed Iran’s supreme leader and other top officials in the opening salvos of the war, President Trump mused publicly that it would be best if “someone from within” Iran took over the country. It turns out that the United States and Israel went into the conflict with a particular and very surprising someone in mind: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the former Iranian president known for his hard-line, anti-Israel and anti-American views. |
Something distressing to see has arrived in my inbox a short time ago. It was obvious from the start of the hostilities that environmental and ecological damage was going to happen, but very little news came out in that regard. It is an aspect of the conflict tween Israel / US and Iran that is often forgotten in a war.
Last week an oil slick was reported close to Kharg Island with no real confirmation as to where the oil came from. Due to the Iranian leadership closing down the internet across the country since hostilities began, very little information has come through in regard to the environmental damage done within the Persian Gulf. A vast majority of the shoreline across all Gulf States including Iran is protected, along with many of the small islands. In the last day or so film footage and photographs have emerged from within Iran of the damage being done to the delicate environment. During the hostilities an oil refinery on Iran's Lavan Island was hit. The damage done was extensive...including oily rain falling in Tehran. Nearby on Shidvar Island, which is uninhabited but has colonies of protected wildlife, it is now known that massive oil damage has been done causing severe pollution and possibly irreversible to the sea and shoreline that has killed birds, crabs, swordfish and other wildlife. The footage has only become public in the last day or two. The damage to Lavan Island refinery was done on or about April 9, 2026, as yet it is unclear who actually hit the refinery. The fires as a result of the attack on the Lavan Island refinery burned for several days afterwards More on this, along with photos and footage : Video and satellite photos show Iran war oil spill on Persian Gulf island (AP News Agency - May 19, 2026) The image below gives Lavan Island position in the Persian Gulf, Shidvar Island is tween Lavan Island and Kish Island. https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....9e3b05d23e.png As the internet is restored in Iran, I suspect there will be more reports of the environmental damage done, not least around the many large ships that were destroyed in and around the Strait of Hormuz. |
An update regarding the proposed role NATO would potentially play in the Hormuz has just been made public, it appears no everyone is on the same page
NATO is not drawing up any plans for a potential mission in the Strait of Hormuz and would need a political decision to do so, its top commander said on Tuesday, amid suggestions by some members that the alliance could play a role there. Any decision to launch a mission would require the approval of all NATO's 32 members and several have already signalled opposition, although no formal proposal has been presented so far, according to diplomats. "The conditions under which NATO would consider operating in the strait of Hormuz are ultimately a political decision," said US Air Force General Alexus Grynkewich, NATO's Supreme Allied Commander for Europe. "The political direction comes first, and then the formal planning happens after that. Am I thinking about it? Absolutely...But there's no planning yet until the political decision is taken," he told reporters in Brussels. |
Originally Posted by gums
(Post 12089286)
Salute!
Somehow, I have not been able to find the "international" maritime law/agreement/treaty specifying Iran as the nation responsible for ensuring safe passge thru the "international" sealanes of Hormuz. Further, if we find that piece of paper, does it allow iran to distribute mines willy-nilly if they are involved in military action with states NOT signing said agreement/treaty/ whatever. Gums asks..... They could.....potentially...if pushed hard enough..lay claim to the entire Persian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz and Gulf of Oman. Reason being they have a biggest share of that entire coastline...from Abadan Island that borders Iraq right through to half of the Gowader Bay that borders Pakistan and they have already claimed most of the islands already both within the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz. Now that might sound far fetched for them to claim the entire waterway as their own, but when you think of it, that waterway would be the perfect way to hold the entire world to ransom....just as they have with the relatively tiny slither, Strait of Hormuz. Who could or would stop them if they tried to claim the entire waterway as their own? No-one stopped them taking the Strait of Hormuz cos no-one in either of the attacking administrations seemed to plan for it or feel that it would happen. Let us not forget the Houthi down at the Bab-el-Mandab Strait...one word, one order from Iran and the Houthi will shut that down too, they have already told the world that they will do that if ordered by their "masters", Iran. Then you have the various Iran backed factions that live and breathe withing the Gulf States...those in Iraq have already been flexing their drone launching muscles this last weekend...that was a warning. A warning that the Gulf States understood and which led to their leaders telling the US not to attack Iran again and to let diplomacy have a chance to succeed. I suspect the Gulf States have already figured that if Iran is attacked and is pushed hard enough the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman would be in as much danger of being claimed as Iranian as the Strait of Hormuz was back on February 28, 2026. As I said, this proverbial nightmare scenario could be seen as far fetched but can we really take that chance and find out? The Iranian ability to take whatever they want has been underestimated already......it is why any form of attack on Iran has always been placed firmly onto the back burner cos no-one really knows what they are capable of. The Strait of Hormuz "ownership" is maybe just a mere taster. I am a mere layperson but I would not put it past them iof they were pushed hard enough. |
Originally Posted by BonnieLass
(Post 12089303)
To be perfectly honest with you gums I find it quite incredible that both the US and Israel were so naive in thinking that the Iranians would not lay claim to the Strait of Homuz and, effectively, weaponise it...in every sense of the word. ...........
The reason I think that such an eventuality was not seriously considered was because the June 2025 bombing of the Iranian nuclear facilities didn't result in that. However, the Iranians discussed closing the Straits but never implemented anything, probably because it was all over by the time they decided to do it. But, in having that debate in-country they had signalled to the world the future potential quite clearly. So, maybe it was decided between Washington and Tel Aviv that "well, they didn't react much in 2025 so let's really clobber them now coz the won't do anything apart from throw the towel in and beg for mercy and they won't be around long enough to close the Straits". Of course we all know what has happened. No surrender from Iran and they are just putting into action a policy they announced back in 2025. The REAL issue is that the US and Israel have landed themselves with their version of the so-called Russian 3-day SMO with no way of hiding that. And, since closing the Straits is their best "weapon" Iran will not drop it until after the US has given up and gone home. Washington knows that but has no off ramp. I suspect Iran, sanctions or no, have no thoughts of removing their hold over the Straits. It's a smart way to ramp up pressure on the US too. Indeed, every day that passes without the US leaving makes it more likely that they'll continue the blockade anyway even after the US goes home. That is the long-term danger. Ho hum! And it simply rolls on........... :ugh: |
I think the reason the closure wasn't considered or was considered and dismissed is that this is an Israeli defined operation and Israel isn't affected by the closing.
Trump is no more a participant in the planning than were the explosives in the pagers that the Israelis sold to Hezbollah. |
Originally Posted by MechEngr
(Post 12089348)
.....................
Trump is no more a participant in the planning than were the explosives in the pagers that the Israelis sold to Hezbollah. But there must have been a vast amount of preparation by the US ahead of this so, while that was taking place at a military working level, surely the strategists would have time to consider the possibilty and provide that advice and then for the US to decide whether or not to join Israel's little adventure. Perhaps advice on that possibility was given to the CIC or the "yes men" decided to deliberately withhold such advice.. Or they knew the risk but assumed that an instant victory would mean that risk would never have time to materialise. Whatever the case, a.bit of a blunder! |
The US doesn't need any pretext to restart combat operations- it's operating in a different reality. Iran's stated retaliation if they do seems to be giving the pause for thought
|
Originally Posted by dead_pan
(Post 12089854)
The US doesn't need any pretext to restart combat operations- it's operating in a different reality. Iran's stated retaliation if they do seems to be giving the pause for thought
'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do' I can't help feeling that "operating in a different reality", this belief that once you're powerful enough, reality is no impediment to ambition, was what lead directly to the present mess, and that no amount of wishful thinking will be enough to extract them from the predictable mess that has resulted. The Iranian regime has been shown that they must have nuclear weapons for their long term survival, and have themselves demonstrated that in the shorter term, control of Hormuz is a potent alternative weapon. The obvious outcome if Iran is clobbered hard enough is the destruction of oil and freshwater infrastructure on the opposite side of the Gulf, crippling the UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait and severely damaging Saudi Arabia. Nobody* is going to win this war, by extension, America and Israel are amongst the losers. (* Actually, anyone making solar panels or electric vehicles or producing oil elsewhere is already winning.) |
The administration's actions with regard to Iran (or most things really) are easily explained. And of course they are not the only bad actors in this piece.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The famous phrase was written by the 19th-century British historian and politician Lord Acton (John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton) He originally expressed this sentiment in an 1887 letter to an Anglican bishop, writing: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." Full context in the spoiler but he was a prescient man
Spoiler
|
Full context in the spoiler but he was a prescient man To say that his observation is timeless might be more accurate. |
Do you apply that to Winston Churchill as well? His wartime leadership was conducted under extreme hardship which makes Zelensky look similar in stature (but without the champagne habit). As for Lord Acton - perhaps not prescient exactly, more a man with an understanding of the human condition when handed such great power. Also he recognised that toadying supporters who are oblivious to moral or legal conventions are needed to facilitate such corruption by power. Does seem kind of familiar. My post was just a comment, just about on topic, not intended for forensic dissection. |
Originally Posted by [email protected]
(Post 12090188)
As for Lord Acton - perhaps not prescient exactly, more a man with an understanding of the human condition when handed such great power.
For petit plateau: that's a nice summary of the LNG situation, thanks for providing that link. |
If the "agreement"or whatever the deal is does not have international inspection of the "peaceful" national nuclear prgram and enforcement features, we will be back to the POS thing negotiated in 2015. And the "laws of the sea" aspects are the second most serious considerations.
We shall see. Gums sends... |
Perhaps it is inevitable Iran will eventually succeed and eventually the question may need to be asked, when do "we" (TROTW including the USA) give up trying to stop the inevitable? At this point they've got very close, and the cost of prevention has become very high, but the potential cost of failure is astronomical too.
|
Salute!
You nailed the military part of nuclear capability of a potential enermy, "At this point they've got very close, and the cost of prevention has become very high, but the potential cost of failure is astronomical too." Emphasize the last point. Gums sends... |
What is the difference between Israel having a nuclear capability and Iran getting the same?
If Iran succeeds there will be better balance in the Middle East and a Mexican stand off between them and Israel like the one between Pakistan and India. We are then in the same MAD as we have been with Russia for so many years - everyone has to blink eventually as the reality of a nuclear holocaust puts petty squabbles over resources into sharp focus. No point in having access to the others resources when you are dying of radiation sickness. The religious drivers of both Iran and Israel are definitely a threat but inflicting armageddon onto your neighbour isn't feasible without wiping yourself out too. |
Originally Posted by [email protected]
(Post 12090847)
.......... The religious drivers of both Iran and Israel are definitely a threat but inflicting armageddon onto your neighbour isn't feasible without wiping yourself out too. Allowing religion to influence politics has always been a dangerous thing. .................
Assuming that the Iranian Government is not agnostic, and you throw in the "Hidden Imam", you now have sections within the Iranian Government who view their role in seeing him "revealed in the midst of a violent apocalyptic scenario played out on a battleground stained with infidels’ blood". All of a sudden normal PPRuNers logic breaks down. Of course, many other Islamic states don't see it this way but it suggests a key faction in the Iranian Government actually see the apocalypse as being "a good thing". What constitutes the "battleground" is also unclear but "it will be what it needs to be" seems to be the general idea. This short Open University Blog (just 8 paragraphs) gives a brief if depressing summary of this and, I suspect, is possibly behind gums' stance on all of this. There's quite a bit more out there on the matter but, factoring in the fact that we in the West just ain't supposed to talk about such matters as it's not "politically correct" to do so, we have simply not had this debate exposed to the general public. So, just how much of a factor this "Mahdism" is in all of this is, well, rather like the question "How long is a piece of string?". Clearly, there is some string there, we just don't know how much of it there is. Something to cheerfully muse over while doing Sunday lunch on the BBQ! You can always rely on H 'n' H to bring some cheer to the discussion!!! :ok: |
The elephant in the room H+H !
Few want to mention, less want to discuss. Is it fear, or some twisted form of the disease of political correctness ! Meanwhile, down the rabbit hole we go !! Assuming that the Iranian Government is not agnostic, and you throw in the "Hidden Imam", you now have sections within the Iranian Government who view their role in seeing him "revealed in the midst of a violent apocalyptic scenario played out on a battleground stained with infidels’ blood". All of a sudden normal *PPRuNer*s logic breaks down. Of course, many other Islamic states don't see it this way but it suggests a key faction in the Iranian Government actually see the apocalypse as being "a good thing". What constitutes the "battleground" is also unclear but "it will be what it needs to be" seems to be the general idea. |
Originally Posted by Hot 'n' High
(Post 12090922)
Nice to see you back Crab! The thoughts above are, on the surface, entirely logical to you and I and most others here. However, it does rely on Iran having the same agnostic-based "world view" and "logic" which, of course, many Iranians will doubtless have. However..........
Assuming that the Iranian Government is not agnostic, and you throw in the "Hidden Imam", you now have sections within the Iranian Government who view their role in seeing him "revealed in the midst of a violent apocalyptic scenario played out on a battleground stained with infidels’ blood". All of a sudden normal PPRuNers logic breaks down. Of course, many other Islamic states don't see it this way but it suggests a key faction in the Iranian Government actually see the apocalypse as being "a good thing". What constitutes the "battleground" is also unclear but "it will be what it needs to be" seems to be the general idea. This short Open University Blog (just 8 paragraphs) gives a brief if depressing summary of this and, I suspect, is possibly behind gums' stance on all of this. There's quite a bit more out there on the matter but, factoring in the fact that we in the West just ain't supposed to talk about such matters as it's not "politically correct" to do so, we have simply not had this debate exposed to the general public. So, just how much of a factor this "Mahdism" is in all of this is, well, rather like the question "How long is a piece of string?". Clearly, there is some string there, we just don't know how much of it there is. Something to cheerfully muse over while doing Sunday lunch on the BBQ! You can always rely on H 'n' H to bring some cheer to the discussion!!! :ok: Removed the JB fodder Thanks for the rest T28B I think it is reasonable to suggest that the policies and goals of both the American and Iranian governments are likely to be influenced by the religious culture of each respective government's members. I pray that both sides are influenced more by independent rational thought. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:58. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.