Tehran's Guardian Council says seizure of UK tanker was in retaliation for impounding of Iranian ship

[EnterpriseSovereign]

A powerful Iranian council says Tehran seized the UK-registered oil tanker as direct retaliation for Britain impounding one of its own vessels earlier this month.

The semi-official Fars news agency quoted Guardian Council spokesman Abbas Ali Kadkhodaei as saying that "the rule of reciprocal action is well-known in international law".

Mr Kadkhodaei said Iran made the right decision in the face of an "illegitimate economic war and seizure of oil tankers" - referring to the seizure of an Iranian tanker off Gibraltar.

The Council rarely comments on such matters, but when it does it is seen as a reflection of supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's views - who has final say on all state matters.

Footage has also emerged of the UK-registered Stena Impero at anchor, believed to be in the military port of Bandar Abbas.

Link. Seems Iran is turning to piracy.

[Gandalf]

Link. Seems Iran is turning to piracy.

As I understand it, when a country does it it's called realpolitik.

Either way, I've no idea where this is all going.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Link. Seems Iran is turning to piracy.

As I understand it, when a country does it it's called realpolitik.

Either way, I've no idea where this is all going.

Interestingly, neither ship actually had any UK citizens aboard- whether Iran actually knew this at the time is unknown.

[Mange]

Link. Seems Iran is turning to piracy.

As I understand it, when a country does it it's called realpolitik.

Either way, I've no idea where this is all going.

Say what? The Swedish-owned tanker wasn't trying to transport oil to a country that is placed under sanctions.

[Ace Pace]

Link. Seems Iran is turning to piracy.

As I understand it, when a country does it it's called realpolitik.

Either way, I've no idea where this is all going.

No one really does. Since the U.S. doesn't really have an agenda here, that means the other countries are mostly running blind.

The U.S. policy seems to veer between the war boys (Bolton, Pompeo), the "status quo" group (Pentagon, State, intel agencies) and Trump.

[NecronLord]

Link. Seems Iran is turning to piracy.

As Gandalf said, it is impossible for an action by a state to be piracy.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Link. Seems Iran is turning to piracy.

As Gandalf said, it is impossible for an action by a state to be piracy.

Jeremy Hunt disagrees.

Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said there will be a European-led maritime mission focused on protecting shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.

In a Commons statement, Mr Hunt described the seizure by Iran of a British-flagged tanker on Friday as an act of "state piracy".

He also told MPs that the shipping transport security has been raised to level three.

His comments come just hours after Iran's state television agency released footage from on board the tanker which was seized by Tehran in the Strait of Hormuz.

[Highlord Laan]

There was a time when attacking the UK's shipping was an open invitation to an extremely unpleasant response from the Royal Navy.

Pity those days have passed.

[Elfdart]

Link. Seems Iran is turning to piracy.

As Gandalf said, it is impossible for an action by a state to be piracy.

Jeremy Hunt disagrees.

Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said there will be a European-led maritime mission focused on protecting shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.

In a Commons statement, Mr Hunt described the seizure by Iran of a British-flagged tanker on Friday as an act of "state piracy".

He also told MPs that the shipping transport security has been raised to level three.

His comments come just hours after Iran's state television agency released footage from on board the tanker which was seized by Tehran in the Strait of Hormuz.

This is the same Jeremy Hunt who claimed the most recent elections in Venezuela were fraudulent because he saw Maduro supporters burning opposition ballots while stuffing the boxes with votes for Maduro. Which is quite an accomplishment, since Venezuela has used electronic voting machines for over 15 years. Jeremy Hunt is five gallons of shit in a ten-gallon hat. If he makes a claim, the opposite is almost certainly the case.

There was a time when attacking the UK's shipping was an open invitation to an extremely unpleasant response from the Royal Navy.

Pity those days have passed.

It's not a pity at all. No Royal Navy, no British Empire. There's a reason why Earnest Jones responded to the British jingoism of the mid-1800s with this quip about the Empire:

“on its colonies the sun never sets but the blood never dries”

If the UK government doesn't want British ships seized, they might want to avoid seizing another country's ships.

[Gandalf]

There was a time when attacking the UK's shipping was an open invitation to an extremely unpleasant response from the Royal Navy.

Pity those days have passed.

There was also a time when attacking the UK's shipping was a good way at disrupting a genocidal, slave trading, Empire.

Pity it didn't happen more, centuries ago. My ancestors might have lives not ruled from London.

[loomer]

Hans Kelsen also felt that piracy was open to state actors. In this case it's not that a state cannot commit piracy - it's that to call this piracy is idiotic since, yeah, it's realpolitik.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

As Gandalf said, it is impossible for an action by a state to be piracy.

Jeremy Hunt disagrees.

Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said there will be a European-led maritime mission focused on protecting shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.

In a Commons statement, Mr Hunt described the seizure by Iran of a British-flagged tanker on Friday as an act of "state piracy".

He also told MPs that the shipping transport security has been raised to level three.

His comments come just hours after Iran's state television agency released footage from on board the tanker which was seized by Tehran in the Strait of Hormuz.

This is the same Jeremy Hunt who claimed the most recent elections in Venezuela were fraudulent because he saw Maduro supporters burning opposition ballots while stuffing the boxes with votes for Maduro. Which is quite an accomplishment, since Venezuela has used electronic voting machines for over 15 years. Jeremy Hunt is five gallons of shit in a ten-gallon hat. If he makes a claim, the opposite is almost certainly the case.

There was a time when attacking the UK's shipping was an open invitation to an extremely unpleasant response from the Royal Navy.

Pity those days have passed.

It's not a pity at all. No Royal Navy, no British Empire. There's a reason why Earnest Jones responded to the British jingoism of the mid-1800s with this quip about the Empire:

“on its colonies the sun never sets but the blood never dries”

If the UK government doesn't want British ships seized, they might want to avoid seizing another country's ships.

Difference is, the British ship wasn't trying to transport oil to a country under sanction. It's not hard to see why the UK is seeking a European task force to protect ships in the area- if there's one thing that Trump can be trusted to do it's ratchet tensions up further with Iran.

The RN's problem is that while we have two state-of-the-art aircraft carriers, neither of them are ready- Queen Elizabeth won't be operational for another year, Prince of Wales, another four.

[SpottedKitty]

The RN's problem is that while we have two state-of-the-art aircraft carriers, neither of them are ready- Queen Elizabeth won't be operational for another year, Prince of Wales, another four.

That's just for getting the ship itself operational; the ship's Wikipedia page says it just has helicopters right now, the F-35 fighters won't be cleared for an actual operational cruise until 2021.

[Elfdart]

Difference is, the British ship wasn't trying to transport oil to a country under sanction. It's not hard to see why the UK is seeking a European task force to protect ships in the area- if there's one thing that Trump can be trusted to do it's ratchet tensions up further with Iran.

Sanction from whom? The EU? Last time I checked neither Iran nor Syria were members of the EU. There is an international embargo on shipping aircraft fuel to Syria, but even the UK government doesn't claim the ship was full of jet fuel. So Britain had as much right to hijack the Iranian ship as the Iranians had hijacking theirs.

[Mange]

Difference is, the British ship wasn't trying to transport oil to a country under sanction. It's not hard to see why the UK is seeking a European task force to protect ships in the area- if there's one thing that Trump can be trusted to do it's ratchet tensions up further with Iran.

Sanction from whom? The EU? Last time I checked neither Iran nor Syria were members of the EU. There is an international embargo on shipping aircraft fuel to Syria, but even the UK government doesn't claim the ship was full of jet fuel. So Britain had as much right to hijack the Iranian ship as the Iranians had hijacking theirs.

What? Syria is under EU sanctions and thus sanctioned resources can't be transported to Syria by a third country through countries belonging to the EU, regardless if it's by land, air or sea. Britain's seizure of the tanker was in accordance with interntional law. If Iran had used a small enough ship that could clear the Suez canal, it wouldn't have passed through EU waters.

[The Romulan Republic]

Difference is, the British ship wasn't trying to transport oil to a country under sanction. It's not hard to see why the UK is seeking a European task force to protect ships in the area- if there's one thing that Trump can be trusted to do it's ratchet tensions up further with Iran.

Sanction from whom? The EU? Last time I checked neither Iran nor Syria were members of the EU. There is an international embargo on shipping aircraft fuel to Syria, but even the UK government doesn't claim the ship was full of jet fuel. So Britain had as much right to hijack the Iranian ship as the Iranians had hijacking theirs.

What? Syria is under EU sanctions and thus sanctioned resources can't be transported to Syria by a third country through countries belonging to the EU, regardless if it's by land, air or sea. Britain's seizure of the tanker was in accordance with interntional law. If Iran had used a small enough ship that could clear the Suez canal, it wouldn't have passed through EU waters.

I'm inclined to agree.

That said, it would be the height of idiocy for Britain to further escalate the situation with a military response, beyond providing whatever escort is necessary to secure civilian shipping from further "retaliation". Unfortunately, Britain already just got the height of idiocy as its new PM, so who knows.

I agree with Enterprise Sovereign that its good the UK is seeking a European task force (though there is an irony there when the new PM is pledging Brexit, no deal if necessary, by Halloween). There are people in the Trump Regime who would love nothing more than a clash with Iran to justify a war (cough-Bolton-cough).

[LaCroix]

It's a clusterfuck.

Apart from the US, nobody is actually claiming that Iran is violating the nuclear treaty, and even now, the UK is pushing for talks with Iran to continue.

The attacked tanker long ago - even Japan is not claiming that Iran did those attacks. Only the US is pushing for this... *cough*Bolton*cough*
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/ ... r-attacks/

The downed surveillance/spy drone - believe who you want on this (Believing a Bolton-led US over Iran is just as stupid as the other way round), but the fact remains that depending of who you believe the thing was either 11000km or 11010 km away from US soil when shot down.

Britain was 'pushed' into action by the US pointing out this tanker was heading for Syria.
There is no proof for that - the UK just seized a supertanker on a US hint and is now back-pedalling by demanding a guarantee that it isn't headed for Syria. Actually, there seems mounting proof that it was another set-up by Bolton to finally get his clash of cultures.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... ohn-bolton

The US then instantly dropped the UK like a hot potato, probably hoping for things to escalate a shooting war they won't win, and then ask the US (who did not start this war in this scenario) for help. (While of course doing their best to fan the flames with their official comments)

The UK might have finally caught on to this (and told the US to back off with their comments - good luck) and is trying to get out of this mess, but in the end, what we have is a clusterfuck of the UK putting themselves out to protect an EU sanction while leaving in a couple of months, on behalf of the US trying to spark a war with Iran.

[Mange]

Sanction from whom? The EU? Last time I checked neither Iran nor Syria were members of the EU. There is an international embargo on shipping aircraft fuel to Syria, but even the UK government doesn't claim the ship was full of jet fuel. So Britain had as much right to hijack the Iranian ship as the Iranians had hijacking theirs.

What? Syria is under EU sanctions and thus sanctioned resources can't be transported to Syria by a third country through countries belonging to the EU, regardless if it's by land, air or sea. Britain's seizure of the tanker was in accordance with interntional law. If Iran had used a small enough ship that could clear the Suez canal, it wouldn't have passed through EU waters.

I'm inclined to agree.

That said, it would be the height of idiocy for Britain to further escalate the situation with a military response, beyond providing whatever escort is necessary to secure civilian shipping from further "retaliation". Unfortunately, Britain already just got the height of idiocy as its new PM, so who knows.

I agree with Enterprise Sovereign that its good the UK is seeking a European task force (though there is an irony there when the new PM is pledging Brexit, no deal if necessary, by Halloween). There are people in the Trump Regime who would love nothing more than a clash with Iran to justify a war (cough-Bolton-cough).

Yes, the UK's idea behind a European task force is that the UK and the EU doesn't share the American insistence on a total freeze of Iranian oil exports. My understanding from what I've read is that if the US had been a part of the task force, it may have looked to the Iranians as if they had aligned themselves to the American position.

The UK/Gibraltar authorities has made it clear that the seizure of the tanker is related to the EU sanctions on Syria, not the Iranian export of oil. AIS data had only showed the Med as its destination. If I'm not mistaken, the entire crew of the Grace 1 has been released. The UK has said that the ship will be released if Syria guarantees it won't go to Syria. Iran has refused.

[MKSheppard]

Just wait about six months, gather the Royal Navy for a Persian Gulf cruise, lean on the US to get some F-35Bs to be repainted in Royal Navy colours; and steam down to the Gulf and blow everything Iran has for a navy or merchant marine up; instead of breaking the Royal Navy to maintain a single ship on station.

[Ace Pace]

Just wait about six months, gather the Royal Navy for a Persian Gulf cruise, lean on the US to get some F-35Bs to be repainted in Royal Navy colours; and steam down to the Gulf and blow everything Iran has for a navy or merchant marine up; instead of breaking the Royal Navy to maintain a single ship on station.

Wat

[The Romulan Republic]

Just wait about six months, gather the Royal Navy for a Persian Gulf cruise, lean on the US to get some F-35Bs to be repainted in Royal Navy colours; and steam down to the Gulf and blow everything Iran has for a navy or merchant marine up; instead of breaking the Royal Navy to maintain a single ship on station.

Wat

Just Sheppard being a war fanboy again.

[MKSheppard]

Just Sheppard being a war fanboy again.

It's the only realistic option to stop Iranian fuckery with UK flagged ships; because the Royal Navy has been reduced by successive British governments to a shadow of its self, to the point that it's hard pressed to maintain 1 to 2 ships near permanently on station in the Persian Gulf.

What CAN be done with the rump Royal Navy is a temporary wartime 'surge' of ships to the Persian Gulf to execute gunboat diplomacy via destroying the IRGC naval forces so they can't be a threat.

[The Romulan Republic]

The thing is, it wont' end there. In all likelihood, it'll escalate into a decades-long regional war that will kill millions, cripple the global economy, and require conscription in the US. At best.

[Ace Pace]

The thing is, it wont' end there. In all likelihood, it'll escalate into a decades-long regional war that will kill millions, cripple the global economy, and require conscription in the US. At best.

Are you willing to gamble on that statement? Because that combination of events sounds quite unlikely.

[The Romulan Republic]

The thing is, it wont' end there. In all likelihood, it'll escalate into a decades-long regional war that will kill millions, cripple the global economy, and require conscription in the US. At best.

Are you willing to gamble on that statement? Because that combination of events sounds quite unlikely.

A likely outcome from where we are now? I don't know. I hope not.

A likely outcome if we employed the Shep solution? Yeah. If Britain sank the Iranian Navy, its not going to end there. Iran has all sorts of other ways of retaliating that they would use, including using artillery or aircraft to attack shipping. You'd have to fight a full-scale war with regime change as the goal, and nobody sane (ie not Bolton and Netanyahu) want that.