According to information on BBC the incident seems to have happened on 10th of July around noon (GMT). Now shouldn't one expect that - after thoroughly considering whether a further escalation is what this crisis will help to solve - it would be the UK government spreading the news. But this apparantly was not the case. It seems that it was Fox News and CNN starting to spread the news at evening prime time in US TV. And these news channels didn't refer to official reports of UK authorities, no, the source was some un-named US official who - by the way - must have limited knowledge of the story as erroneously there was 5 Iranian boats reported in the beginning. Only some later there was an official press release of the UK government.
If I didn't know better I would ask myself if there was some interest in this special timing of feeding information to the US citizens.
5
According to information on BBC the incident seems to have happened on 10th of July around noon (GMT). Now shouldn't one expect that - after thoroughly considering whether a further escalation is what this crisis will help to solve - it would be the UK government spreading the news. But this apparantly was not the case. It seems that it was Fox News and CNN starting to spread the news at evening prime time in US TV. And these news channels didn't refer to official reports of UK authorities, no, the source was some un-named US official who - by the way - must have limited knowledge of the story as erroneously there was 5 Iranian boats reported in the beginning. Only some later there was an official press release of the UK government.
If I didn't know better I would ask myself if there was some interest in this special timing of feeding information to the US citizens.
If Iran weren't a potential threat to Israel, would the US government(s) be preoccupied with Iran to the degree that Trump's actions now pose a threat to the whole world?
4
Two questions have to be answered:
1. What precisely has happend?
2. Why have news about this incident already been spread at prime time of US news channels - with reference to an un-named US official - when an official statement of the UK government was only given the next day?
2
Two questions have to be answered:
1. What precisely has happend?
2. Why have news about this incident already been spread at prime time of US news channels - with reference to an un-named US official - when an official statement of the UK government was only given the next day? How does this help de-escalation?
As long as the tanker was in international waters which seems to be the case, the British warship should have blown the Iranian gunboats out of the water. Iranian misbehavior needs to be brought to an end and a crystal clear message needs to be sent.
24
Only of course none of this actually happened. It’s obviously a story concocted by the Brits to justify their naval operations in the gulf and distract from their pathetic weakness in the face of Trumpian bullying.
31
@Mike
Where are the pictures of this incident?
15
@Christian Haesemeyer
I have an easier time understanding the reasons behind comments like yours since I watched the deeply fascinating New York Times documentary called Operation Infektion, which concerns disinformation campaigns originating abroad.
Perhaps you, too, should watch Operation Infektion, which is available on this website, and on YouTube. Cheers.
10
Time to take out the Iranian navy.
This is what happens when we wimp out, as we did last week.
1
@Jonathan Katz
If it were that simple it would have been done already. Iran is a medium weight military power these days, and any war once started is likely to be long and bloody. American casualties are inevitable, so from your armchair you are recommending that American boys come home in aluminium coffins.
There was a satisfactory international pact designed to thwart Iranian nuclear ambitions; sufficiently long term to see the most of the senior clerics in their graves before it ended. This marvellously simple means of solving the problem has been abandoned, thanks to idiocy.
6
USA in co-operation with concerned countries MUST TAKE ACTION Now. Iran is a rouge state with militant proxies that destabilize the ME. A nuclear Iran will pose a threat to the whole world and should not be allowed to materialize. The Issue is not that Iranian people but the fanatic regime. A regime change in Iran would be welcomed by everybody including the Iranian people.
1
@lieberma
" A regime change in Iran would be welcomed by everybody including the Iranian people"
Yes, as Cheney said before the Iraq invasion, they'd welcome us with open arms ;-)
The Strait of Hormuz has been a choke point for many decades for the flow of oil from middle eastern nations.
Why significant over land pipelines were not invested in and installed across the peninsula long ago is mind boggling. Sure.. it would require agreement and cooperation between local nations.. but that could certainly have been addressed long ago.
You remove the strait from the equation and there is no longer any real tension point for Iran to pivot around.
Then again... I do think some western nations as well as Saudi Arabia and Israel actually do want a real war with Iran (fought by proxy by the US and EU of course), so I can see them doing everything possible to keep the strait as a tense choke point.
1
Dixon Pinfold
''..The campaigns,.. plant paranoid worms in weak minds in the West, teaching knee-jerk distrust of democratic governments. Those weak minds then flatter themselves that they've acquired a salutary "skepticism and critical thinking" as though those valuable things are attained the moment one denounces the West.''
What a nasty post. Long winded, unmotivated personal abuse, arrogant, lacking logic with no historical context and frighteningly conformist all while just being just a repetition of Hermann Goering's old adage;'Of course no one wants war but you can always make war happen when you accuse those that oppose it of treason, it works every time'
You talk about credulity despite all the other proven times we have lied to get into wars and so you are part of those lies. Perhaps you should go on to U tube where you can hear Mike Pompeo HIMSELF admit he lies cheats, steals and then laughs about it. Starting lie based wars AGAIN and so 100,000s die and millions are homeless once again and the world is threatened and YOU are the good guy?? No sir you are not.
I have just heaped an Iranian family come to live in Sweden and they stayed at my house for 6 months and now have work and their own apartment. Perhaps you would like me arrested for treason for committing such a horrible crime such as trying to help a family whose son was my son's friend survive while you the good guy support liars trying desperately to start another war that could escalate into WW III!
4
@Vlad Drakul The fact that this Iranian family fled Iran tells something about the Iranian government.
1
Britain is sinking. To vote for Johnson, the idiot son of Trump, and then leave the EU has my military ancestors rolling in their graves. England will become a sinking billionaire island of hedge funders mimicking Epstein. An absolute disgrace.
But Trump will be supporting Russia and Saudi Arabia in WWIII. Are you Brits “woke” yet?
3
@H.A. Hyde
In UK it was Pakistani immigrants who preyed on young girls, imitating Epstein.
1
You can't stop any nation hell bent on getting nukes...unless you embrace or nuke them. Ground troops etc, won't do...
Well, this game won’t take long to play out. Accidents, identical or otherwise, are going to happen and then chest beating will move to killing. Perhaps the Iranians are saner than they seem, but I doubt it. As for us, we have already proved since 1960 to today that when it comes to war and killing, we are totally insane. For what it’s worth I’ll try to explain the U.S.A to Iran, but I doubt they will understand. Here goes; we can out insane you any day of the week. Your next mistake will be your last.
2
@BS
True.
But you should've concluded with "Your next mistake will be our next".
This crisis has been created by Mr. Trump to bolster his ego that he is powerful to force Iran to the negotiation and clever enough to get a better deal than Mr. Obama. Fifteen years was a long enough period to render Iran's nuclear program obsolete. If they tried to pursue aggressively for making the bomb, the options of sanctions and military threat would have been available at that time also. It is unnecessary mess made by Mr. Trump by his delusion of grandeur.
5
Why do white countries have the right to be in waters so far away from their soil. The Imperial thinking must stop.
4
@Mir: They don't necessarily have the right, but they have the guns, who's going to stop them .
@Mir
Your name suggests that you may indeed know from first hand experience that there are far worse states in the world than the Western countries.
What if China tried to run the world ?
For one thing, the Chinese security police force would have already hacked the computer you posted your subversive 'anti-state' comment from, identified you and would be en route to violate your freedom.
What if Russia tried to run the world ?
Political activists, whingers and journalists do end up being shot in dark alleys.
What if Islam tried to run the world ?
Well, we have fought tyranny before and we will do it again.
Bear in mind that the very notion of territorial waters is itself something that is defined by international treaty.
The right of passage through the Straits of Hormuz is also defined by treaty. If the right of passage did not exist then Iran would have undue control over the exports of neighbouring countries because Iraq, Kuwait and Qatar would not have free access to the open seas.
2
I hope Britain has the good sense to avoid a conflict in the Persian Gulf. There is already too much political turmoil in Britain. Adding a war to an already fraught political equation could cause serious domestic problems with far reaching consequences.
3
I do not believe this report--I rarely believe anything Israel, the UK or the US says about Iran or Middle Eastern adversaries, heck, or even about allies.
3
You rarely believe anything Israel says about Iran. Do you at least believe what Iran openly says about Israel? Like Iran’s desire/intention to wipe Israel off the map?
4
Wow! Just the thought and hubris that a country would dare to fight back against the economic warfare of the West. Amazing. After destroying Libya, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, let's destroy yet another ME country for our Israeli masters.
6
@h king, We are a destructive force. We need the targets to use this force. According to Mr. Trump power is fear in other people.
I wonder what we will/can do if Iran does build a nuke?
Whoops! There I go, thinking ahead again.
@C. Neville
A number of nations have built up a nuclear arsenal and have followed exactly the same doctrine as the US and the USSR did ---> you build to deter, not to actually use.
There are no signs that Iran would use a nuclear arsenal differently then every other nuclear nation has... with the exception of the US.. which has actually used them offensively in the past.
On 10th of July "US plans coalition of allies to patrol waters off Iran and Yemen" and on 11th "Iranian Boats Tried to Block British Tanker in Persian Gulf, U.K. Says".
A miraculous coincidence or is the Iran inofficially supporting this alliance?
3
The headline for this article makes the conflict appear one-sided. Here's a rewrite that would be fair to both sides: "Iranian boats attempt to block British tanker, after Britain seizes Iranian tanker." Or, "Iran replies to seizure of its own tanker by attempting to block British tanker."
Similar character count to the original headline, but gives readers more of the story. Come on NYTimes editors, you can do better.
10
@Wayne Cunningham The NYTimes has always supported hawkish policies and Western Imperialism... It is part of its "liberal" orthodoxy to encourage the subjugation of the world's poor to further the interest of American oligarchy.
1
@Joe Torra Oh brother, (rolls eyes).
1
It occurs to me that if Boris Johnson becomes British prime minister as expected, we will then have loonies in charge of two major western players in this crisis. This plus Iranian intransigence could add up to a very worrisome situation in which "cooler heads" would be very scarce indeed.
7
There are more than a few artful use of words and switching of story in this article:
1. The boats are obviously there to mark, and possibly defend, Iranian territorial waters. All reputable news sources have referred to "three Iranian boats" that were in the vicinity of the tanker. For some reasons, in the text describing the picture, this article refers to them as "Iranian ships", thus hinting that at a much more ominous situation;
2. The article claims that the boats "sought to block" the British tanker. A few small boats blocking a huge tanker is obviously a fishing tall tale;
3. The story changes as one reads further. The boats are no more blocking the huge tanker but are said to be "impeding" its passage through the strait, implying they were forcing the tanker to slow down. Again, knowing that it is impossible to slow down a huge tanker quickly, one has to wonder why such a story is being concocted.
As in the case of Iraq war, we are now witnessing a step-by-step demonization of Iranians. Now everything they do or they don't do is twisted to appear menacing. This is obviously part of the campaign of convincing the world public, and particularly the US public, that the only way to "preserve" peace and stability in ME is for the US military to attack Iran.
That directly contradicts the views of those who understand balance of forces in ME. They all believe that such a military attack will engulf the entire region in a long war with unknown consequences.
8
Trump and Boris.
Roosevelt and Churchill.
Pompeo and Bolton.
Marshall and Kennan...
The panorama of human history flows on.
3
Its not like they can abandon all nuclear efforts and join the international community....oh wait they can
Squeezed by sanctions, Iran could contemplate disrupting the oil flow through the strategic Strait of Hormuz. Last year, an IRGC commander had threatened to block the passage through the Strait if their exports were stopped.
Iran is defiant, as it has nothing to lose. Would the US go to war with Tehran? It is not as simple as Trump’s buddies in the region – Bibi Netanyahu and the Saudi Crown Prince, MBS – imagine.
This week the US wants to form a multi-nation military coalition to monitor Iranian activities in the Gulf waters. The Americans seem willing only to provide command and control, along with surveillance. The actual patrolling and escorting of merchant ships would be left to others. How many other countries are going to take part remains to be seen. With tensions mounting in the region, many governments will be wary of getting involved. But they will have to find a balance between safeguarding their vessels, while staying out of the Trump-led coalition against Iran.
3
@J. von Hettlingen You clearly don't grasp the purpose of the Naval War College in Newport. Plans to escort tankers have been updated annually since Casper Weinberger was the Secretary of Defense and the US Navy sank the Iranian Navy in an afternoon in Operation Preying Mantis. The US Navy has sufficent forces in theater to protect freedom of navigation from acts of piracy and/or war by Iran and its proxies.
1
Its critically important to avoid war however if Iran continues to impede other nations from obtain goods and systematically breaks international law there WILL BE CONSEQUENCES FOR the deficiencies.
4
“...more severe limits....including it’s support for allied militias....”. If we had real diplomats, real advisors consented to by Congress, we might have stayed with the nuclear agreement and made these demands as a new initiative.
Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel, sitting down, finally, to discuss all of their militias. Borders, co-existence, tolerance- to say nothing of peace, trade. Threatening an extreme position may work in the business world, in a poker game, but not in a nuclear world (North Korea’s attempt at this ploy excepted).
And where are Russia, China? Waiting to take advantage- after our Western economies spend more billions intervening in a MidEast disaster area. Great negotiating, great advisors. Republicans must be so proud.
4
@Jo Williams
Israel has no prior dispute or problem with Iran, and shares no borders. It is Iranian support of terrorism, its constant threats to destroy Israel, its building up of Hezbollah's missile arsenal and terror tunnels, supplying Hamas with more sophisticated missiles and money to build infiltration terrors, and seeking to establish hi tech military bases in Syria from which to attack Israel, that has rightfully made Israel seek to defang Iran's hateful leadership. Do not make the mistake of assuming Israel started this conflict. The conflict even predates the first Ayatollah Khumeini, while he was still living in France. Iranian students in America, early 1979, were getting petitions signed to bring back the exiled Khumeini, and stating that Israel had to go. I remember asking one such exchange student, why was she so against the Jewish state when it had no land/border disputes with Iran. She could not answer me, other than to say the Ayatollah was against Israel. Brainwashing.
3
@Rosalie Lieberman, Israel has more advanced missiles, bombers and arsenal of nuclear bombs. It is curious you object to other country having missiles. It is deceptive to describe Iran's threat Israel constantly. Ahmed di Nijad, ex president was crazy to use that bombastic language. Hassan Rouhani, current president has never uttered such words toward Israel.
4
@Rosalie Lieberman
That is a very naive set of statements in my view.
Clearly you are very pro-Israel, which is fine. But it does not justify giving us the full-Netanyahu role play.
Israel does not want peace among arab nations and can and will meddle clandestinely, economically, militarily, and diplomatically to try to undermine Iran as a nation.
Yes... radicals inside Iran have tried to provoke anti-Israel feelings inside Iran. At the same time... Israeli radicals have tired to provoke anti-Iranian feelings inside Israel too, as well as trying to get the US to fight Iran as a proxy to Isreal. People in glass houses should not throw stones.
Basically the Western Powers just make up rules as if there is some legality to what they are doing. British warships in the Persian Gulf is a provocative act, just like the US drone flying within 21 miles of Iran.
9
@Steve
A merchant or warship of any nation can peacefully travel in the open non-territorial waters according to the freedom of the seas. Russian warships ans intelligence ships move along the US cost all the time.
2
@Steve Sure Steve. In your world, did the USSR also invade the 3rd Reich instead of the other way around?
3
@Steve peaceful travel in international waters DOES validate the use of escort vessels when those waters are considered at risk of posing harm.
Drones flying clandestine missions along another nations borders is a completely different animal. In the case of drones... it does appear that the US has sent drones inside Iranian national boundaries on multiple occasions in the past.. and as such... are provoking a response... and recently got one. It is not clear in the recent case of the drone did at some point violate Iranian air space.. but it would not surprise me if it did as it is American doctrine to play "cat and mouse" with foreign nations borders as one method of testing defenses and responses.
Iran is fighting for its life under our murderous pressure. If war breaks out it will be due to the abject incompetence of American policy.and unjustified sanctions. We have been treating other nations like this for years and are rightly despised by most of the world for it.
13
@Mike Murray MD Our murderous pressure? What would you know about murder? Perhaps you mean to refer to the active measures being perpetrated by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Quds forces against civilians in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and any where else free people oppose the tyranny of the Ayatoillahs and their henchmen.
2
@American Akita Team
Here's some interesting reading for you. Read what the Americans did to destroy Vietnam and Iraq. Enjoy the tutorial.
2
@h king We have a two hundred year list of military incompetence beginning with the attempt to seize Canada in 1812.
3
What a mess. There is no "easy" war with Iran. Period. We couldn't even adequately subjugate a much smaller and less mountainous neighbor without wasting thousands upon thousands of lives and over a trillion dollars. What would be the "win" in a war with Iran? How are you going to verify they don't have those pesky nukes without a sustained "boots on the ground" presence? And from the Iranian perspective, they would have to be crazy to NOT make nuclear weapons as soon as possible. The obvious lesson of recent history is that if you have nukes, we won't invade you but if you don't, we just might to make sure you don't get them in the future. Ask Qaddafi how that worked out for him.
2
@Sci guy Have you every been to the Naval War College - as in the Anglo-Dutch Wars of the 1600s , there is no win, merely the maintenance of freedom of navigation for trade which is a win. There is no plan to invade Iran. The plan to destroy their capacity to disrupt commerce and trade by sinking their Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Quds surface warfare fleet, mining Iranian harbors and destroying their A2D2 capabilities. If Iran escalates, maybe we drop a few earth penetrating bunker busting bombs on their nuclear sites where they claim to be exceeding the uranium enrichment parameters of the JCPOA. There is no war, merely the enforcement of International Law which affords nations the right of freedom of navigation. Iran has no military options other than to attack an exponentially superior naval force with air assets and take a beating that will degrade its ability to conduct piracy and threaten freedom of navigation. Iran knows this so they are playing a passive-aggressive game and hoping that rubes in the West who don't understand the nature of the conflict and the endgame will protest because poor innocent Iran is being asked to stop fomenting violence and terror and proliferating weapons to violent revolutionaries throughout the region.
1
The Iranian government has been a one-trick pony for forty years: take hostages and hope to blackmail. They would do well to recall the experience of the Barbary pirates when the US had had enough.
3
@NorthernVirginia They would do well to recall Operation Praying Mantis and understand that the US Naval War College has gamed this scenario to maintain freedom of navigation under International Law dozens of times.
@NorthernVirginia--The Barbary pirates originated in North Africa in what is now Libya.
1
@sharon5101 The Barbary States were comprised of what is today Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya and they were Ottoman proxies. The Barbary slave states were not ultimately ended until the French conquest of Algeria and Tunisia starting in 1830.
2
The Iranian government has been a one-trick pony for forty years: take hostages and hope to blackmail. They would do well to recall the experience of the Barbary pirates when the US had had enough.
1
I can understand why the world community wants to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The bullying of Iran however, is a move against Shiite Islam, favoring the equally bad actors Saudi Arabia and its allies in the Gulf, which are Sunni Arab countries. The US invaded Iraq to oust its Sunni despot Saddam Hussein. Whadda mess, and the US should nose out.
4
What are you smoking? They may be far from perfect but interpretation of aggression in this particular case is very lopsided
@Pat 1. Iran is the bully, not the viticm.
2. Iran is run by a Shiite Mafia of Ayatollahs and Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Quds henchmen bent on exporting the Iranian revolution and Iranian hegemony via violence and active measures to undermine non-Shia regimes and attack non-Shia peoples.
3. Thank you for being an apologist for Iran and helping to make the bad actor the victim.
3
Iran is a huge blemish on the face of humanity. A country run by religious fanatics who wish to impose their brand of religion on the rest of the world. And they’re willing to do it through hook or crook. The global community needs to come together and eradicate this worldwide menace.
12
@Mike L Oh gee, wonder what created the conditions for religious zealots to come to power?
Maybe it had something to do with us overthrowing their democratically elected government to protect BP's access to Iranian oilfields...
US regime change policy and military imperialism is the real blemish on the face of humanity.
5
@Mike L
Gosh, a country run by religious fanatics who wish to impose their brand of religion (and beliefs) on the rest of the world? That doesn't sound familiar at all.
5
Sounds like you just described our current Republic party.
2
See how much international damage an unintelligent, uninformed President can cause?
20
@Not That Kind
Aye, and we in the UK have Boris Johnson looming over the horizon.
Gee whiz - what a set of ongoing, embarrassing shambles.
At least I've got the chance of Scottish Independence to buoy me up.
8
@Fred Humble I agree that would be a good thing. The Scots are successful and fierce. My mother's kin are from near Hawick and are both. That said, I also have Canadian citizenship so if this madness continues much longer that may be an option.
2
@Fred Humble
Aye, it's true - your wonderful collies are smarter than our President. He suffers from a very bad case of distemper, and nips wildly at everyone.
Sorry for any spill over into your land - we are working hard to have him "fixed" in 2020.
2
"Iranian officials called the (American) penalties 'economic warfare.'”
Can any objective observer gainsay that statement?
6
@Jim Muncy
We are living in 21 century and we are witnessing the most powerful country on the globe is starving to death people of another country because they are not capitulating to impulsive whims of the first country's "leader". What is there to dispute?
3
@Jim Muncy
Iran's ayatollahs, Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Quds forces have been exporting the Iranian (Shia) Revolution via violence, terrorism. weapons proliferation, espionage, cyberwarfare and open warfare for decades. Now a US President has called them out for it. Not since Nixon, has a President been so blunt to a foreign adversary. The reason the Ayatollahs are whining so loudly is that they know the party is over and the bill is due.
I understand that baseline antipathy towards Trump is widespread, but has this become so orthodox that people immediately side with Iran against our allies as a default? Such an inflexible trigger response would be pathetic if it weren't so frightening.
13
@Amitava D Thr right honorable Amitava D is correct. The bloody Liberals and Democrats are betraying King and Country and our national interest based on free trade predicated on freedom of navigation of the seas. Such misguided myopic back benchers would pluck the very feathers from the American Eagle if it would serve to embarrass Mr. Trump and they would do so without regard to whether and by what measure such destructive actions would serve to degrade our national interest and that of our allies. Any disrespect to the Union Jack and the White Ensign of the Royal Navy is intentional and orchestrated to intimidate the United States Navy. It must be met with resolve and the demonstration that every sailor will his duty for King and Country.
2
@Amitava D,
Precisely. This knee-jerk allegiance to any force that opposes the liberal Western world order under the guise of anti-Trumpism is appalling.
1
Just remember that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor largely because of the crippling sanctions the US and our allies were imposing on them. I am not debating whether those sanctions were merited, nor am I debating whether sanctions against Iran are merited. Just stating the result. Granted Iran is not Imperial Japan and the situations are not entirely analogous. But we should not be surprised if the Iranians lash out either.
8
@Still Waiting for a NBA Title Wrong - The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor because the Red Army handed them their behinds atThe Battles of Khalkhyn Gol from May through July 1939 which ended Japanese plans to seize the riches of Siberia and forced Japan to turn south toward the Dutch East Indies in search of oil needed to wage war. The attack on Pearl Harbor was a flank protection move and was never intended to do more than protect the invasion forces headed south. It was the Royal Navy's use of carrier based torpedo planes against the Reggia Marina at the Battle of Taranto from 11–12 November 1940 that inspired the attack on Pearl Harbor. So your analysis for causation of the reasons for the attack is 100% false. It was the actions of future allies (Britain the USSR) that led the Japanese to violate US neutrality and it had little to nothing to do with our ineffective economic sanctions on Japan. Once the IJN was able to learn from the British how to use carriers to attack a fleet in port, the tactical opportunity for a surprise attack became a reality which when coupled with the IJA's defeat by the Red Army, the only option left was to strike south to Indonesia. US Sanctions on Japan did not lead to the attack. That is a grotesque falsehood.
@Still Waiting for a NBA Title Wrong - The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor because the Red Army handed them their behinds atThe Battles of Khalkhyn Gol from May through July 1939 which ended Japanese plans to seize the riches of Siberia and forced Japan to turn south toward the Dutch East Indies in search of oil needed to wage war. The attack on Pearl Harbor was a flank protection move and was never intended to do more than protect the invasion forces headed south.
@American Akita Team
And why was Japan desperate for resources? Sanctions.
1
Lets not lose sight of Trump's actions toward Iran and his assault on policies and regulations in the U.S. As long as they are even tangentially associated with Barrack Obama, he will try to erase any record of their existence. He will put the Trump Stamp of the decimation of the quality of air and water and continue his love affair with coal, oil and gas to our detriment. The enrichment of his donors and the One Percenters, or the 0.01%, over the middle-income and lower-income Americans will be the opening paragraph of his historical record. My only hope is that he will enter the dust bin of history before 20 January 2021.
9
"England expects every man to do his duty" - the famous flag signal flown by Nelson.
I'm not at all surprised that the Iranian boats turned away.
Quite different from, "Hey, I just changed by mind" - the stuff our armed forces have to put up with. But, of course, our commander-in-chief didn't have his forearm blown off and his right eye destroyed in battle - two separate incidents, 3 years apart - and then go on to fall at Cape Trafalgar, many years later.
No, not all men are created equal. Some don't compare at all.
9
@Peter Zenger "No captain can do very wrong if he places his ship along side that of the enemy," Lord Nelson.
2
Iran tried for a cheap victory and ended up looking like fools - this time. However, they are always there and British warships may not be next time.
6
The main objective of the 2015 Iran Deal was to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. By all accounts, it was working, and the world and America were safer places because of it.
The Fox News crowd and Trump couldn't agree that anything Obama had done could somehow be beneficial, and backed out of the 2015 deal to the detriment of all parties just to spite Obama's legacy. There are a lot of anti-American things the current far-right is involved in while they simultaneously wrap themselves in the flag (or literally hug it), and this is a prime example.
23
It's a bit shocking how little most of the commentators seem to understand about the history of our interaction with Iran, US imperialism and why this scenario is the logical conclusion of decades of internationally illegal actions toward that nation.
6
I agree completely, Eric. Though your replies seem to be well informed and on point!
1
@Eric W What?
It would be nice if the UK had an ally they could rely on at this time.
Are members of the British Navy aboard these vessels and are they armed?
Is there a standing order for the USN to go to the aid of the British Navy in these situations, and if so why isn't it publicized?
We are skipping toward war with Iran to keep Don in power.
9
@Lawrence,
The first part of your post is completely disconnected from your final sentence. You seem to be saying that we should stand with Britain and that doing so is only to keep Trump in power. As a fellow who drove naval auxilliary oil tankers through the AG, Straits of Hormuz, and Gulf of Oman from 1987-2006 I can say that most of the perils are man-made and the US & UK navies work very effectively together.
9
@Charles Becker
A Royal Navy presence aboard the tanker might make the ship a Royal Navy auxiliary.
An attack on the Royal Navy would be an attack on NATO.
Under Trump treaties are just a piece of paper.
That is why a public announcement by something other than twitter reinforcing our obligations and bond with the Royal Navy is needed.
2
@Lawrence,
That is an interesting proposal. I don't speak for anyone else because I can't, least of all the Tweeter-in-Chief, but during both my active duty USN days and the much longer period I spent as a civilian mariner, there was never a question in any of our hearts that mutual support would be offered without request.
3
Even if minor incidents like this "increase the risks of a larger conflagration", what were the British supposed to do? Say, "go ahead Iran, and block the straits", or whatever else they were planning. We Americans know well the Iranian hostage-taking record since the time of their revolution, and that should never be allowed to happen again. Iran is choosing to play a very dangerous games here, when they are quite aware what they have to do relieve themselves of the sanctions regime. President Trump must also show restraint in this situation, and try to find an international partner who can talk to Iran for him, before it's too late.
10
@David Godinez: Except you've got Britain seizing an Iranian tanker on the high seas. Iran is only doing tit-for-tat. Are they supposed to roll over and play dead in the face of the Trump-induced efforts to strangle their economy? Would the U.S., Britain or Israel play nice if faced with the same circumstances?
5
@gschultens - No. Britain did not seize Iran's "Grace 1" tanker. The UK provided a small contingent of Royal Marines to help Gibraltar arrest the Grace 1 while it travelled in (pace Spain) Gibraltar waters in defiance of the EU'S interdiction of supplying oil to Syria. The tanker is currently "under arrest" off Gibraltar while the case is argued in Gibraltar's Supreme Court. Iran may argue that the tanker was not en route to Syria and if that could be proved then no doubt the tanker will be released and allowed to proceed. If the court decides that the cargo was due for delivery in Syria then the cargo will be forfeit and the tanker's owners subject to fine before its release.
Maritime law is sometimes complicated, but best to stick to it don't you think?
22
@gschultens
Um, the Strait of Hormuz is not the "high seas." In fact, "To traverse the Strait, ships pass through the territorial waters of Iran and Oman under the transit passage provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Although not all countries have ratified the convention, most countries, including the U.S., accept these customary navigation rules as codified in the Convention." For more, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Hormuz
Anyway, whatever side you're on, doesn't her majesty's ship look grand in the Reuters photo?
3
Didn't the UK, just a few days ago, actually board and seize an Iranian oil tanker near Gibraltar?
9
@Spartan
You mean the tanker trying to smuggle Iranian oil to Syria in violation of EU sanctions? Yes, that is that one.
15
@Spartan - No. Gibraltar asked for UK assistance in arresting a vessel suspected of travelling to deliver oil to Syria in contravention of EU sanctions (against Syria.)
The UK provided the assistance requested in the form of a boarding party of Royal Marines. The vessel is now under the control of Gibraltar's Supreme Court. No doubt the Royal Marines remain on standby.
7
@longsummer I thought Gibraltar was part of the UK. Is it a soverign country now?
1
Excellent! A European naval ship defending the shipment of European oil! It's about time! Now, for the other European and Asian importers of Middle Eastern oil to knock the rust off their navies' ships and go protect what's theirs in that region.
Dear Europe, Korea and Japan: Please stop depending on the United States Navy to protect YOUR oil (unless you buy it from us!).
11
@CM "unless you buy it from us!" ... sorry to mention this but Europe isn't so much interested in oil fracked from oil shell. Maybe that's an foolish illusion but we are heading for a furture with solar and wind energy.
But you are right in this respect: all this conflict isn't about undemocratic regimes or the violation of human rights. If it was, there would be other candidates in that region that would need some attention of the world community. The conflict is about oil, world oil price and the control over regions producing oil. It's not politics, it's business.
3
@CM ... oh I forgot: there was much less need to protect any tanker in that region before Mr Trump decided to withdraw from the uranium contract.
2
@CM I would share your sentiments if the event that motivated it had wasn't a fabrication.
1
We need the EU to intervene and de escalate the conflict.
3
This entire situation is insane. Just look at the map of the Strait of Hormuz. If the Iranians close it, much of the world's oil supply at least temporarily dries up.
Sure, the Royal Navy can keep some Iranian fast boats from seizing a British tanker, but if the Iranians decide to mine the Strait, then it's anybody's guess what will happen.
I think it was very ill-advised for the Brits to seize the Iranian tanker at Gibraltar. They seem to have forgotten they no longer have an empire.
I'm not optimistic about any of this. A war with Iran would be disastrous, and is the last thing we need. It is not winnable.
14
@Vesuviano - the Brits are not relying on "the Empire" but the rule of law. Not yet an entirely antique concept.
21
@Vesuviano On the other hand, the US has unilaterally reduced the global oil supply through sanctions on Iran and Venezuela.
4
@longsummer: A "rule of law" that's heavily manipulated against Iran.
4
I don’t uncritically believe Western reports of Iranian action in the Gulf, but if this did happen it is completely justified, considering the UK’s unwillingness to release an Iranian mega oil tanker it stole recently in the Strait of Gibraltar.
9
@Basant Tyagi - What? International piracy aimed at damaging international trade can be "justified" by the enforcement of well-understood and widely publicised EU trade sanctions against Syria. No.
Iran may feel embarrassed and aggrieved in its current economic crisis by the enforcement of EU trade sanctions, but it doesn't justify further terrorism or piracy.
That would be absurd.
2
@Basant Tyagi - what is this? "Stole"????
What bit of sanctions against Syrian does Iran (or indeed you) not understand?
If tankers en route to Syria pass through or close to spheres of British control or Royal Navy interception capability they risk being arrested.
Easy to avoid. Just don't trade with Syria.
2
@Basant TYAGI Interesting. You must think that the Syrian government is justified in killing more Syrians since, after all, those citizens do belong to Syria.
So international law matters for this but not when it comes to upholding the internationally negotiated and recognized nuclear deal? You know, the deal that was formally recognized by the UN Security Council? We were the first party to the agreement to violate international law.
And international law doesn't seem to matter when our belligerent militarism leads us to invade nations and starve civilian populations with entirely illegal sanctions.
But it's apparently really, really important when oil profits are threatened..
Got it.
45
The UK illegally seized an Iranian mega tanker filled with precious oil, exploiting its colony of Gibraltar to conduct the piracy. Britain’s reversion to state-piracy is reminiscent of its actions during the 16th century, which were a prelude to colonial imperialism. The country - which dominated much of Iran in the 19th and 20th century - also has a long history of stealing Iran’s oil. After the profitability of the UK-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now called BP), which had a colonial monopoly over Iran’s oil, was threatened by Iran’s desire to control its own resources, the UK colluded with the US to overthrow Iran’s first democratically elected government, replacing it with a pliable and brutal dictator.
Britain’s behavior is deeply troubling, revealing that its colonial rule never ended. Now it is an enforcer of US imperialism, and its small colonies scattered across the globe are bases from which to project aggression. The UK must release the Iranian oil tanker immediately. Proportional action by Iran to achieve this outcome is entirely justified, considering the circumstances. There should be global outrage over Britain’s actions, but unfortunately the world has grown used to the US and it’s allies behaving as rouge states on the world stage.
14
@Basant Tyagi
This lengthier version of your other post only expands the misconception on which your stance too obviously depends.
Conflating Iran's attempts to evade EU trade sanctions that interdict oil supplies to Syria with historic British control of Persian oil reserves and early development of Iranian fossil fuel potential does not reduce the absurdity of your attempt to justify Iranian piratical lawlessness.
One of the consequences of centuries old British global maritime hegemony, is that there are clear and internationally accepted laws. Britain and the Royal Navy enforce them where their (much reduced) naval and maritime power allows.
Iran would do well to take note of it. It's quite possible that Iranian attempts to damage international shipping in the Strait of Hormuz are being advanced by rogue elements outwith the control of Iran's own central government.
It's worth noting that Gibraltar's request for UK support to enforce the arrest of the tanker en route to Syria was made under the terms of the EU sanctions regime. Given that the EU is far more likely to try to placate Iranian demands than the USA, it seems politically absurd for Iran to complain too loudly (let alone expand their programme of terrorism and piracy) about the arrest of a tanker in clear breach of EU legal sanctions.
14
@Basant Tyagi Nice to see someone on here who actually understands that international law encompasses more than the selective aspects the US and "allies" use to browbeat the rest of the world into accepting their imperialism.
Most US actions abroad do not comply with any international laws and yet we have the audacity to cry foul any time a nation has the nerve to push back against our illegal bullying.
5
@Basant Tyagi.....love the idea that UK and US are rouge states......by the way the Iranian tanker was caught by EU sanctions....still rouge has made my day.
6
Instead of keeping a neutral stance like the EU in the US-Iran conflict if Britain is siding with the US to confront Iran it will be at its own cost specially when it is neither a strategic asset for the EU nor a close ally of the US as it used to be.
7
@Prof. Jai Prakash Sharma
Nonsense. The rule of law, in this case the law of the seas, is worth defending. The search for reasons to justify lawlessness, piracy and terrorism from an Indian perspective, from a nation that has generally supported the importance of the rule of law is particularly upsetting.
8
@Prof. Jai Prakash Sharma
Neutrality in the face of a state sponsoring terrorism is equivalent to surrender.
1
@longsummer "from an Indian perspective..." That feeling when the colonials don't toe the line.
1
Hooray for the Brits, if only America can learn from them.I still
remember when the Iranians had American Sailors on their knees with their hands up surrendering to these bandits.
We must show the Iranians some resolve or they will continue to bully us.
10
Contrary to international law, Britain seized an Iranian ship. They don't have to abide by European sanctions. That is not an international law.
11
@Bill - I'm not sure how much international maritime law comes across your desk in Madison, CT, but Gibraltary's arrest (yes, that's what it's called) of an oil tanker with the assistance of Royal Marines from the UK while the tanker was en route to Syria in breach of EU trade interdiction is indeed the enforcement of international law. Quite simple. Not sure why it should even be slightly contentious....unless you have another axe to grind perhaps?
7
@longsummer Not sure what made you think you are and expert:
Regarding economic sanctions the difference between unilateral and multilateral sanctions is crucial. In order to avoid terminological misunderstandings, I refer to specific examples as an introduction: the sanctions imposed by the US on a regular basis, especially since the end of the Cold War, are unilateral. Also the economic sanctions by intergovernmental entities, such as those which the European Union imposed on Russia, fall under this category.
As far as the legal implications of sanctions are concerned, one needs to bear the following difference in mind: Unilateral means that one state or a group of states – acting as an organization (such as the EU) or as an ad hoc coalition – imposes sanctions as measures of economic “punishment.” Such acts don’t result from any legal, let alone internationally binding, obligation.
Multilateral sanctions, on the other hand, are measures imposed to exert economic pressure within the United Nations system of collective security; they are binding for all UN member states. From the legal standpoint, this is completely different. These are unilateral.
4
@Bill - oh i don't know, maybe practising as an admiralty lawyer....
Thanks for the fascinating insight into the (totally irrelevant) difference between unilateral and multilateral sanctions. Irrelevant because the vessel was arrested in EU waters.
Here's the legal skinny for you. If you travel through EU waters (and let's defer discussion of the Treaty of Utrecht and any potential dispute over the territorial waters of Gibraltar versus those of Spain as both are still EU whether Spanish or Gibraltarian) then your vessel is subject to EU law and the EU's trade interdictions.
See. Not so hard after all.
But love your expertness.
3
Iran appears to have forgotten the Ancient Law: Britannia rules the waves.
4
That no so “ancient law” that you are referring to also said that the GB is not to be trusted.
4
The lack of EU ever having had any meaningful support of JCPOA is finally apparent. After a year they can no longer speak from both sides of their mouth. They made empty promises and patiently waited for Iran’s frustration and withdrawal from the deal and now they side with US for a potential conflict with Iran.
27
@MS: I gather you need to speak out of both sides of your mouth when dealing with the same kind of mouth in Tehran. If life were only so simple when dealing with criminals.
3
"Contrary to international law" they have seized our tanker, so It is the case of tit for tat.
4
@Tohid Noraein - "Your" tanker (good to have that confirmation) was on its way to Syria and so was arrested by Gibraltar, deploying Royal Marines from UK, as an attempted evasion by Iran of EU sanctions on Syria.
But still, no doubt, you'll continue to muddle along in a morass of obviously false assertions in order to try to justify the sort of petty piracy and terrorism which the once-proud Iranian nation now seems to have come to.
"Tit for tat" indeed. Nonsense.
10
@longsummer
EU sanctions are not extrajudicial, Iran is not a EU member to "evade" EU sanctions, EU is not the Security Council.
"petty piracy and terrorism" is the acts of UK in Gibraltar, ordered by his master in US.
3
@Tohid Noraein Oh dear oh dear. You're missing a crucial point. The tanker was arrested while travelling through Gibraltarian waters (or if you're determined to be a Treaty of Utrecht nay-sayer, through Spanish waters.) Thus, the poor old Grace 1 came under the ambit of EU trade interdiction.
Come on. Get a grip.
5
The Iranians obviously don’t do child psychology. If they did, they would let Trump “renegotiate “ the nuclear deal, much like Canada and Mexico did with NAFTA. In the end, they would get the same terms, and Trump would get a new acronym. Win win!
18
@Mr. B
Yes, you're right. But, the Iranians would get a better deal. A much better deal because Trump is the worst negotiator.
Then, he would repeatedly tell the world what a great deal he got for us, and half of Americans would believe him.
6
@Mr. B
If we return to the same deal and avoid war with Iran I'll be glad to let Trump take the credit. But he's making a new deal with Israel and the Saudis. Maybe the Brits are helping them establish a reason for dropping the first bomb.
We should immediately place him under impeachment where he can't do any more damage.
2
Iran seems determined to have a confrontation and may get one.
8
@Michael Livingston’s I remember when Iran really tried extra hard to have a confrontation by taking Americans hostage. Luckily, we had Carter in the White House and he wanted to make sure he was being fair, avoided any type of attempt at conflict, and gave Iran extra time to do the right thing. Let's get Carter back so he can persuade Gilbratar to let that ship go so that oil can be delivered to Syria's murderous regime and more innocent men, women and children can be gassed and bombed to death.
1
Time for the US and allies to react and defuse the nuclear Iran extorsion and threat. A nuclear Iran will pose a threat to world peace and should not be allowed to materialize.
8
@lieberma it seems that in recent years the biggest threat to world peace has been the US.
10
@Tradewinds
So you have always the option to emigrate to Iran and denounce your American citizenship. Your comment is anti-American and in support of our enemy.
1
Iran is really feeling the pressure of the sanctions. Taking measures to look crazy and scary so the global left condemns America's policies and pressures for change. Stick to the plan, Trump. It's working.
14
@Christopher
Let me be more clear... Trump, stick to the plan that Pompeo and your team of advisors came up with and that you approved. It's working.
1
@Ryan Well, if the plan is to get us involved in a completely unnecessary war, it hasn't happened yet, but it certainly looks like the chickenhawks in this maladministration are trying.
You might recall that Trump pulled out of the agreement in order to apply more severe sanctions. Our allies all look on, bewildered.
Incompetence, it's working.
@Ryan Oh? Trump has a plan? Who knew?
Does the plan involve Trump Steaks? Trump Shuttle? Bankrupt casinos?
Elect an incompetent “businessman “, get incompetent government.
49
The film camera was invented around 1888. Now isn't it rather strange that there seem's to be not a single video clip nor even a single picture of this incident. Isn't the U.K. navy interested in giving proofs for their description? Every soccer goal nowadays is equipted with a video proof system but the crew of a frigate does not document a supposed assault that could trigger a war? Strange.
26
@ Sepp... Come on, admit it. Even if there was video you would not be satisfied. You'd then claim it was doctored and/or there was no way to verify its accuracy.
27
@Ryan
OK, maybe the U.K. navy was to busy to take pictures or the fake ones are not yet ready, but why didn't the U.K. forces not try to arrest the terrorists or the pirates (or the fishermen)? Is a U.K. frigate not armed strong enough to deal with three "boats" (not "ships"!) or at least one of them? Maybe I missed that information, but how big were these boats and how many people have been on and why does the U.K. navy assert that these were "Iranian forces" and not just pirates? And what sense would it make for the Iranian forces to dilettantishly attack a tanker shadowed by the U.K. navy. Don't the Iranians have radar to attack un-shadowed tankers only - if that would give sense? If the Iranians want to have the A-bomb (that's what Mr Trunp claims) what sense does it make to attack a tanker with a boat?
7
@Sepp The Royal Navy is not in the social media business. Testimony from the officers of HMS Montrose and the supporting evidence from the crew of the splendidly named "British Heritage" is sufficient. As always. Video footage may become available if cleared by UK intelligence assessment (which will carefully assess whether any such footage might unnecessarily reveal any currently unknown details of the frigate's capabilities to the Iranians.) Safety first. Social media second (if at all.)
17
All of what is happening and is to come could have been easily abandoned by sticking to the nuclear deal, who provided clear guaranty for Iranian nuclear program. The reimposition of sanctions by America, effectively as harsh than those inflicted before the deal, will erode the credibility of any future diplomatic effort of the warmonger US administration, the lap dog, and the weak EU.
The JCPOA was working with full compliance of Iran. Negotiation were open for the region. Now, the deal is on the verge of collapsing and the region prepares itself for a new war.
No escape on this one, like Iraq, the responsibility is to those who changed the status quo; the Trump administration, Israel, and the respectable Salafist autocracies.
Even fewer reasons to be optimist about "progress".
13
Oh no! The Epstein child-rape story must be getting to close for comfort.
Conflict with Iran to the rescue!
57
@Corbin
The Epstein story will not damage Trump. We should have learned our lesson from the Mueller craze.
Our President is a man who has behaved in a greedy and disgusting manner his entire life - everyone knows that; even his supporters. Most people just don't care.
His association with Epstein is no closer than many, many other people in high places; not only in our own country, but around the globe - Bill Clinton for one; does that smear the Democratic party? No, you don't care, and neither do Republicans care about Trumps vague association with Epstein.
Acosta convicted Epstein - there is no ammo there. He shot Epstein; are you going to say he did not shoot him enough? And what did that have to do with Trump?
This is all just sensational tripe tossed about by the media, to get viewership and clicks. It is not the key to getting rid of Trump. Trump is not Epstein (other than in spirit), just as Trump was not Manaport (other in than in spirit). There is no viable strategy here.
We are not a moral nation; a tar brush does not work - not even with feathers tossed on. If it did, Trump would have never made it through the Republican primary in 2016.
1
After letting Donald Trump decide who the UK ambassador in DC is, I guess the Brits has to reassure themselves of their imperial past?
23
@Christian Haesemeyer
Alternatively they may have wanted to ensure the safe passage of a tanker.
4
@Christian Haesemeyer - your timeline seems to be a little out of kilter. As always the Brits enforce the rule of law, even when their allies are being hopeless. Come what may.
1