|
British flagged Swedish owned tanker seized
A BRITISH-flagged Swedish owned tanker has been seized by Iran and is heading for the Revolutionary Guard base at Qeshm Island.
Northern Marine, a subsidiary of Stena AB, confirmed "hostile action" had occurred before the tanker Stena Impero changed its course this afternoon. It is believed 23 crew members were on board. Just a few days ago Iran's supreme leader had threatened Britain will retaliation over what he described as the "vicious" seizure of an Iranian oil tanker near Gibraltar by UK forces. Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has accused Britain of “piracy” after the Royal Marines seized a supertanker believed to be carrying Iranian crude oil to Syria on July 5.He has called for the immediate release of the oil tanker Grace 1, which was detained on suspicion it was breaking European sanctions by taking oil to Syria. In a TV speech, the Ayatollah said: “Evil Britain commits piracy and steals our ship and gives it a legal appearance.“ Iran and those who believe in our system will not leave such vicious deeds unanswered.” Iran's Revolutionary Guard also seized another oil tanker on Sunday, the Panama-flagged MT Riah.The country later released a video showing the troops in speedboats seizing the tanker along with 12 members which it accused of smuggling oil.The unverified video shows the moment two speedboats circulating the Panama-flagged MT Riah. The foreign oil tanker was reportedly then seized shortly after being surrounded in stormy waters. |
Let's see how quickly the Americans and their President get blamed for all of this and the Iranians not.
That has been the standard response in the past. |
So is this a NATO Article 5 issue?
|
Looks like the Liberian flagged crude oil tanker Mesdar has taken a turn for the worse as well.
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....73109d0738.jpg |
Originally Posted by havoc
(Post 10522988)
So is this a NATO Article 5 issue?
|
Originally Posted by SASless
(Post 10522975)
Let's see how quickly the Americans and their President get blamed for all of this and the Iranians not.
That has been the standard response in the past. |
Looks like the Mesdar may be turning back on course to Saudi.
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....d3b5123157.jpg |
The question is what are we (the all inclusive "we") going to do about what plainly is a series of actions by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard that could very well equate to Piracy or even acts of war?
What response shall we see from the UK? |
Originally Posted by racedo
(Post 10523056)
Only in John Boltons Wet Dreams............... speaking of which he seems to be staying in his coffin a lot these days.
|
Racedo,
I would much rather hear a reasoned response from you offering your opinion about the actual situation at hand. We get it....you do not like Bolton, Pompeo, Trump, or apparently anything American....but that is irrelevant to the matter at hand and gratuitous slanging does not add too the discussion. Stick to the facts and issues if you will. Do tell us how you think the UK and by default NATO and other non-NATO nations should react to the latest event(s) by the Iranians.? There can be no doubt the Iranians are involved....no matter how you wish otherwise. If you wish to be seen as credible....you must stick to the issues and at some point take a position beyond banging your favorite drum. So tell us....what is your analysis and expectations for the UK Government over the next few days....weeks...and couple of months? |
Originally Posted by SASless
(Post 10523117)
Racedo,
I would much rather hear a reasoned response from you offering your opinion about the actual situation at hand. We get it....you do not like Bolton, Pompeo, Trump, or apparently anything American....but that is irrelevant to the matter at hand and gratuitous slanging does not add too the discussion. Stick to the facts and issues if you will. Do tell us how you think the UK and by default NATO and other non-NATO nations should react to the latest event(s) by the Iranians.? There can be no doubt the Iranians are involved....no matter how you wish otherwise. If you wish to be seen as credible....you must stick to the issues and at some point take a position beyond banging your favorite drum. So tell us....what is your analysis and expectations for the UK Government over the next few days....weeks...and couple of months? Best reaction is not to over react. Iranians reacting to UK taking their tanker, Uk wants to hold it another month, Iranian decided to play a tit for tat game. SFA to do with NATO but we will see them running in as soon as possible. Bolton will already be wanting Special forces to go in and kill lots of people and get the tanker back, cooler heads will prevail and it will eventually be released as part of a choreographed action. Article by Peggy Noonan is one to read and maybe for US to follow. https://www.wsj.com/articles/america...ct-11563490667 |
Originally Posted by SASless
(Post 10523117)
Racedo,
I would much rather hear a reasoned response from you offering your opinion about the actual situation at hand. We get it....you do not like Bolton, Pompeo, Trump, or apparently anything American....but that is irrelevant to the matter at hand and gratuitous slanging does not add too the discussion. Stick to the facts and issues if you will. Do tell us how you think the UK and by default NATO and other non-NATO nations should react to the latest event(s) by the Iranians.? There can be no doubt the Iranians are involved....no matter how you wish otherwise. If you wish to be seen as credible....you must stick to the issues and at some point take a position beyond banging your favorite drum. So tell us....what is your analysis and expectations for the UK Government over the next few days....weeks...and couple of months? |
Racedo,
Now that is exactly the kind of reply that bears considering. As to what exactly Bolton is thinking....upon what inside source do you rely to base that comment upon? You reckon that he may be tasked to play that role in the administration so the President can be seen as taking a more reasoned and diplomatic approach to these kinds of events? Keeping one's adversaries on their hind foot does work to one's advantage and to the opponents dis-advantage. Being un-predictable makes the political calculus for the other side much more difficult for them to sort out. |
Originally Posted by SASless
(Post 10523135)
Racedo,
Now that is exactly the kind of reply that bears considering. As to what exactly Bolton is thinking....upon what inside source do you rely to base that comment upon? You reckon that he may be tasked to play that role in the administration so the President can be seen as taking a more reasoned and diplomatic approach to these kinds of events? Keeping one's adversaries on their hind foot does work to one's advantage and to the opponents dis-advantage. Being un-predictable makes the political calculus for the other side much more difficult for them to sort out. He maybe a useful foil to have but he recently has believed he has more power than he has. Trump slapping him down publicly twice within weeks brought him to heel. He wants a war against Iran because Israel wants a war and he is beholding to them and has been for decades. I doubt a lot will happen prior to Israel elections in September, though Bibi may want something to try and get him elected again. Tanker being siezed in Gibraltar was what set this off, Iran was always going to react it just needed time. Iran is clear it will not be pushed around, it made and kept to agreements in the past that US broke. So from their side why would the trust the US when Israel just has to tell them break it and it happens. Any agreement US makes would just have next President repudiate it hence now US word becomes meaningless, now even US friends understand that, when your friends doubt your word then you need to worry. |
Racedo, what agreements with Iran did the US "break"?
The US withdrew from the previously negotiated agreement. As in, canceled it. Nothing there to "break". |
Another oil tanker, the Panama flagged LR2 Poseidon has reportedly been boarded in the Gulf of Oman.
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....9380d2b9d1.jpg |
President Trump has legal and executive authority under US and International Law to do as he did.
It may not be popular, and might even be the wrong thing to do...but he is within his authority. The terms of the Agreement (Treaty if you wish....) facilitate any individual Nation a part of the Agreement to cite issues and take action if it feels there was not a proper response to those concerns. Yale Journal of International Law | Is the Trump Administration Bound by the Iran Deal? |
Originally Posted by obgraham
(Post 10523153)
Racedo, what agreements with Iran did the US "break"?
The US withdrew from the previously negotiated agreement. As in, canceled it. Nothing there to "break". |
Jeremy Hunt has warned Iran it will face "serious consequences" if it does not release a British-flagged tanker seized in the Strait of Hormuz.By jove Jeremy,I am sure they will be choking on their Chelo Kabab's.Come Tuesday Boris will slap them down with a Kipper!
|
So it’s legal when britain takes an iranian ship in international waters but piracy when iran returns the favor? |
Originally Posted by SASless
(Post 10523203)
President Trump has legal and executive authority under US and International Law to do as he did.
It may not be popular, and might even be the wrong thing to do...but he is within his authority. The terms of the Agreement (Treaty if you wish....) facilitate any individual Nation a part of the Agreement to cite issues and take action if it feels there was not a proper response to those concerns. Yale Journal of International Law | Is the Trump Administration Bound by the Iran Deal? US decided that it could do what it wanted and break its previous agreement. It then demand everybody else follow its steps or they would sanction any business doing trade with Iran and start and economic blockade. Now even its own friends realise that any agreement with US is breakable by them whenever a politician wants to do it. A Treaty means nothing because the next President can just walk away from it. US doesn't need to worry about its enemies, they will always be there, its friends however are the ones who openly wonder what US is doing. UK will always be a lapdog but rest of EU see blocking of pipelines etc as nothing more than a move to corner the market. |
Sunfish, the Iranian vessel was on its was to Syria in breach of EU sanctions and was therefore boarded. But Im sure you knew that already didnt you? The UK have also been in talks and offered a peaceful way forward. It appears however, that Iran has proceeded in a tit for tat game. Itll be interesting to see if the UK vessel was in breach of any international rules/regs. The company who own it claim it hasn’t. |
is iran a member of the EU? By your logic, I could prohibit you from drinking beer and then send a friend around to keep you out of the pub because you are in breach of my “sanctions”. To put that another way, there is no legal relationship between iran and the EU. U.N. sanctions? Yes EU? no. |
The Grace I sailed through territorial waters of an EU member. I'm not sure the information is yet sufficiently clear on position of the 2 ships apparently taken by the Iranians to confirm whether they were in international waters or not.
The equivalent in your analogy might be not allowing people to drink beer in your own garden, but having no influence over what they do in a pub. |
Drust-etc - my thoughts exactly. sunfish - the Iranian boat (sorry - ship) was in EU waters in defiance of EU sanctions when it was detained. Expecting to sail through unchallenged in defiance of said members states sanctions is somewhat dumb. The uk flagged tanker on the other hand was in international waters apparently. It’ll be interesting to see what international rules/regs it had broken. No proof has been forthcoming just yet. If we’re into analogies- It’s like me telling you that you aren't allowed to walk through my property (or the property of my neighbours) en route to so and so’s party carrying beer, and then being annoyed when you do and then get detained. I then offer to release you, providing that you don't take your beer to so and so’s house. You then threaten to detain a member of my family. You attempt to do so on a public highway (i,e not on your property) but get chased away by their older brother, and a few days later, you try the same again and succeed. Again-not on your property, with no proof forthcoming yet of any wrongdoing. |
Originally Posted by Professor Plum
(Post 10523392)
Drust-etc - my thoughts exactly. sunfish - the Iranian boat (sorry - ship) was in EU waters in defiance of EU sanctions when it was detained. Expecting to sail through unchallenged in defiance of said members states sanctions is somewhat dumb. The uk flagged tanker on the other hand was in international waters apparently. It’ll be interesting to see what international rules/regs it had broken. No proof has been forthcoming just yet. If we’re into analogies- It’s like me telling you that you aren't allowed to walk through my property (or the property of my neighbours) en route to so and so’s party carrying beer, and then being annoyed when you do and then get detained. I then offer to release you, providing that you don't take your beer to so and so’s house. You then threaten to detain a member of my family. You attempt to do so on a public highway (i,e not on your property) but get chased away by their older brother, and a few days later, you try the same again and succeed. Again-not on your property, with no proof forthcoming yet of any wrongdoing. |
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_passage Transit passage is a concept of the Law of the Sea, which allows a vessel or aircraft the freedom of navigation or overflight solely for the purpose of continuous and expeditious transit of a strait between one part of the high seas or exclusive economic zone and another. The requirement of continuous and expeditious transit does not preclude passage through the strait for the purpose of entering, leaving or returning from a state bordering the strait, subject to the conditions of entry to that state. This navigation rule is codified in Part III of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.[1] Although not all countries have ratified the convention,[2] most countries, including the US,[3] [4] accept the customary navigation rules as codified in the Convention. This navigation rule took on more importance with UNCLOS III as that convention confirmed the widening of territorial waters from three to twelve nautical miles, causing more straits not to have a navigation passage between the territorial waters of the coastal nations.[3] Transit passage exists throughout the entire strait, not just the area overlapped by the territorial waters of the coastal nations. The ships and aircraft of all nations, including warships, auxiliaries, and military aircraft, enjoy the right of unimpeded transit passage in such straits and their approaches. Submarines are free to transit international straits submerged since that is their normal mode of operation.[3]Transit passage rights do not extend to any state's internal waters within a strait.[1] The legal regime of transit passage exists for all straits used for international navigation where there is not a simple alternative route, and where there is no long-standing international convention governing the straits such as for the Danish Straits, the Turkish Straits, and the Strait of Magellan. The major international trade routes of the Strait of Gibraltar, Dover Strait, Strait of Hormuz, Bab-el-Mandeb and Strait of Malacca are covered by the transit passage provisions.[3] If that doesn’t apply at Gibraltar then it doesn’t apply in hormuz. If britain can stop ships then so can iran. |
Did anyone think this through?
As in - if we arrest /detain a tanker at Gibraltar how many UK ships re in the Gulf and how will we protect them? Because it's either criminal lack of foresight or an attempt to make the situation in the Gulf worse................ Which is weird as the UK is trying to save the N deal but at the same time has issues with that lady in jail and refuses to settle the bill for the tanks that is till outstanding... certainly NOT a joined-up policy I'm afraid :rolleyes: |
If that doesn’t apply at Gibraltar then it doesn’t apply in hormuz. If britain can stop ships then so can iran. The correct and legal methods are with diplomatic protests and International Courts....not piracy! The Captain and senior Officers of the Tanker seized by the UK were given a Court appearance and bonded....and released. The Court extended the period the Tanker could be held pending the "defendant" to prove its cargo was headed to legitimate buyers. Compare that to the Iranian actions. Also take note that the Official News outlet for the Iranian Regime directly contradicted the semi-official PARS version of the reasons behind the seizure. The Iranians cannot get on the same sheet of music when it comes to the reasons they are seizing multiple Tankers....and have not afforded the crews that are being held captive any sort of legal proceeding . Face it....the Iranians are walking over their own Willy by doing what they are and how they are going about it. |
It's ok. The British government is taking this seriously 🤣
|
Conservative Tom Tugendhat,( Neville Chamberlain) chairman of the Commons foreign affairs(and appeasement) committee, said if the report is correct, Britain should rule out the use of force in response. “That’s an important Iranian military port and I think any military options will therefore be extremely unwise,” he told BBC Radio 4
|
Originally Posted by racedo
(Post 10523262)
US made a binding agreement along with other parties with Iran. It decided to break it and walk away with zero proof even though body monitoring said it was clear that Iran was keeping to the agreement. Israel demanded US break the agreement and it did. Why is US allowing a foreign govt interfere ? US then imposed sanctions and demanded others do so as well.
It is true that after reimposing sanctions, the US told others "you choose, us or them". Sorry you don't like that, but you still have a choice. |
What military action can the UK carry out that would have a "positive" effect on this whole situation and not. harm its own interests?
There just isn't the Tools in the Kit Bag due to the down sizing of the UK Military these days for them unilaterally to influence such a campaign. It would require a multi-national response...UK/US perhaps....but certainly not the Israeli's. The Israeli's understand they have to act independently or see an anti-Iran Arab/Western powers coalition fall apart. Racedo.....exactly where do you come up with this notion that the Agreement is "binding" on any signatory to the Agreement? The "Agreement" has options for every signatory to raise issues and exercise options.....that is exactly what the United States Government did. Put up your evidence to prove the United States violated the wording of the "Agreement". Even Obama called the "Agreement" a political agreement and did not pursue Congressional approval as a "Treaty". President Trump carried that forward upon taking office. http://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2017...g-nuclear-deal |
Video of the capture of the Stena Impero on Twitter.
|
If Britain had not invested so much money in two large aircraft carriers, there would have been more money available for more destroyers and frigates. Does Britain really need these two huge assets? It seems clear that a fleet of many more smaller vessels would be much more useful - not only in places like The Gulf, but also around the coast of Britain to control immigration, and perhaps fishing rights after Brexit.
The Royal Navy is seriously short of ships. Had every British vessel been escorted through the Straits of Hormuz after the oil tanker carrying Iranian oil was stopped and taken to Gibralter, this would not have happened. You don't need too much imagination to see that this tit-for-tat escalation would soon start. But we are now almost impotent. |
"The Captain and senior Officers of the Tanker seized by the UK were given a Court appearance and bonded....and released."
Nothing to stop the Iranians from doing the same - bu the crew may want to stay on the vessel under "house arrest" I'm interested in what the Iranians say - about where the tanker was - but right now it does look like tit-for-tat. Which is clearly illegal under international law.............. but I suspect they feel International Law hasn't done much for Iran over the years. |
Sasless: ‘ The Captain and senior Officers of the Tanker seized by the UK were given a Court appearance and bonded....and released. The Court extended the period the Tanker could be held pending the "defendant" to prove its cargo was headed to legitimate buyers. Compare that to the Iranian actions. |
Nothing to stop the Iranians from doing the same.... If the Iranians were playing by the Rules they would have preferred charges against the Captain and perhaps the senior members of the crew....and made all those proceeding public wouldn't they? They have not....and the news media (international media) are not having much access to the crews are they? |
And the point of the troops on the Mil helicopter needing facemasks is...…?
|
Originally Posted by Blossy
(Post 10523753)
And the point of the troops on the Mil helicopter needing facemasks is...…?
|
| 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.