Trump has wrecked the nuclear deal and is wreaking havoc in the region. Just what he and Bolton wanted. We can not unconditionally trust the Iranians, but at least we had a deal in place that we could control along with our allies. Now Iran is in control. Why would anyone expect a different outcome after Trump tore up the agreement? And why, just to spite Obama, not because the Iranians were non-compliant. What would any American citizen do if they had an agreement signed in good faith get torn up, especially if they were in compliance? They would get a lawyer and sue! Unfortunately, the Iranians cannot sue Trump and the U.S. for breach, so instead we have tit-for-tat that could lead to war.
3
Feels like at this point it doesn't matter what the Iranians will do, people here will claim justice is on their side.
I'm not a fan of Trump, but justifying everything Iran is doing just out of hatred for him seems a bit irrational.
18
There is some interesting irony here; Britain bullied by Iran.
Ironic because this is the same Britain that used its navy to bully everyone for some five hundred years. I have nothing but deep admiration. Weaker countries, weaker navies, weaker people paid steep prices; enslavement, wholesale destruction of cultures, famines, concentration camps, and most other conceivable forms of evil.
Much of the grandeur afforded the crown and country came from the Navy, way back from the time of Sir Francis Drake.
So to find a British ship in trouble with Iran is quite out of the ordinary. This is what Bolton and associated war-mongers and regime-changers have been waiting for, and I think we are about to do something rash, break something, and come to own it for the next 50 years.
Wonder how Britain, other than huffing and puffing a bit, plans to deal with this. I am sure they would be very interested in fighting to the last American and the last dollar in their quest to redress this dishonor and injustice. Could they have found a better person in the WH willing to do this than Trump.
28
@Kalidan
I’m pretty sure Britain does not want to get involved in a war with Iran. In fact they have requested that Pompeo refrain from commenting on the situation while Britain tries to sort things out diplomatically with Iran.
Pompeo and Bolton do want a war with Iran however, and they are itching for an excuse to start one.
Trump would go along with that since it would make the Sunni Saudi’s happy.
6
@Kalidan
The British discovered the oil in Iran after tremendous investment and effort and bought the Shah off for a pittance because he was so greedy and ignorant and they got a long term contract paying peanuts to Iran for the oil. Iranian oil replaced coal for the British fleet. The Iranians were screwed by their ignorant and selfish ruler. One of the problems in the third world is that their leaders are generally ignorant and selfish. I recommend Daniel Yergin's The Prize if you want to understand Iran and the Mid East.
6
@AS
Your comment is a little one-sided. Admittedly, the Qajars were among the most corrupt dynasties and regimes in Iran's history, but it is easy for a sophisticated world power to misuse the greed and naivety of regimes controlling under-developed nations: The past 200 years in particular reveal a litany of abuse by Britain and the U.S. throughout Africa, Latin America and the Middle East, simply for financial gain.
And was Iran to blame for the British-U.S. overthrow of its democratically elected government in 1953, simply because Mossadeq wanted to put an end to the abuse? You can't have it both ways.
6
Britain is no longer an empire and should stop acting like one. Why are they provoking a war? Back in 1953 the US backed Britain and BP Oil to overthrow Iran's Premier that was seeking a western style democracy. Britain was upset that they could no longer steal Iran’s oil, after Iran nationalized their oil to use the profits to help their citizens. Britain along with the US continued to overthrow democratically elected governments in favor of more authoritarian ones that would allow the plunder of their resources. The US in the Iran Iraq War helped Saddam acquire chemical weapons killing tens of thousands, while the Iranian chose not to use chemical weapons. Iran has their enemies mad because they are willing to fight back against imperialism.
33
Doubtless, this is the "serious consequence (s)" of Britain's seizing of an Iranian ship a few days ago. It might be interesting if both the U.S. and Britain ceased considering Iranian territorial waters and the Straight of Hormuz as their private sea domain and stayed out of it on a permanent basis. Since it is still July, it is as well to remember the U.S.S. Vincennes' totally inappropriate action inside Iran's territorial waters 31 years ago, which resulted in the wrongful death of over 290 people, and which then Vice-President Bush, before the U.N. Security Council, declined to apologize for. There are characterizations other than "totally inappropriate" which more clearly identify the action as criminal. The intense arrogance of the U.S. and Britain, and the illegal imposition of sanctions against the Iranian people by the demagogue Trump lead one to conclude that anything other than regime change is untenable to these powers, which tends to identify them as international outlaws.
34
@Disinterested Party
Britain was acting as a member of the E.U..
E.U. sanctions say oil mustn’t be shipped to Syria and the Iranian oil tanker was in EU waters in the Strait of Gibraltar. All Iran needs to do is say the oil is not going to Syria and it can sail away.
I sure do wish Britain had kept out it though.
6
@NorthernFlutterby, Britain's Navy and the EU has no business in the Middle East. We wouldn't like it if Russian or Chinese military ships were sailing off of the Texas coast.
7
This crisis is Trump's fault. The UK was a signatory to the 2015 deal with Iran, which the United States reneged on for no good reason, and now the UK and Iran, who had worked out a peaceful accommodation, are at each other's throats. The chaos that Trump creates doesn't affect only the United States; he's been a destabilizing force around the world.
44
@lydgate. Obama had no authority to make a binding deal without the support of the Senate. Senate Democrats filibustered a vote on a treaty, that would not have been passed anyway. So much for the phone and pen gimmick. Same with the Paris deal. Why did Obama act recklessly, making deals for years beyond his authority? You’re blaming the wrong president.
9
@lydgate. Lydia, stop blaming Trump for everything. Did you happen to notice it is a British tanker?
4
@Jay
Peace is nice.
War - not so much.
1
Iran is playing the US and Britain like a concert pianist's performance at the Albert Hall.
1
Can the adults now please sit in a room and exchange their two tankers back?
2
That's just about right: Seize a foreign tanker, then scream loudly when that nation seizes yours!
Britain (It's not 'great' anymore) is threatening Iran with 'consequences' for seizing a tanker. I would like to know when Britain (and its Big Brother) will suffer the 'consequences' of enabling Saudi genocide in Yemen ..... come to think of it, the consequences of murdering two million Middle Easterners,and creating 20 million refugees, in wars largely co-sponsored by Britain, which provided the bulk of excuses (lies) for the invasions and bombings.
'Consequences'? As the Brits would say: "Pull the other one."
3
This is a funny article. What can the pacifistic British people do? Send a warship? Fight Iran and lose? The once mighty empire is a joke.
1
The strategy is simple. The US has to neutralize Iran in order to give Saudi Arabia and Israel unlimited and unencumbered power to be able to resume the war against Syria and remove Putin from influence in Syria and all of the Middle East. They will then become the dominant force in all of the Middle East, and this will allow the US to control an even greater percentage of world oil production. *** It will be a short war and leave Iran in total chaos.
2
But it's okay for England to seize an Iranian ship?
3
Iran has the US and EU countries over a barrel, all because Trump, Pompeo, and Bolton never considered Iran would use the ropa dope to devastating effect, revealing that the US is even weaker than George Forman against Muhammad Ali because the US doesn’t want to risk a wider Persian Gulf conflict that would stop all oil shipments out of the Gulf.
1
How come the Brits can seize an Iranian tanker with the apparent approval of the NYTimes, while if Iran commits a reciprocal act, you feature the Brit's outrage?
3
Iran first established its nuclear program in 1957, under Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, with an agreement on nuclear cooperation with the United States under the Atoms for Peace program. In 1960, it purchased from the United States a small research reactor, which is located at the Tehran Nuclear Research Center.
The war in Iraq started on March 19, 2003. Some believe the 2003 campaign traces it roots back to the Gulf War in the early 90s with Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein in power at the time.
Iraq army was easily destroyed, but the child Iran is playing with nuclear weapons...which is quite lethal.
On Sept. 24, 1996, the United States and the world's other major nuclear powers signed a treaty to end all testing and development of nuclear weapons. Do you believe all nations having nuclear capabilities are being good boys and girls?
Man will self destruct whether by global warming climate or a global nuclear holocaust. May God protect us from our selves.
I'm not convinced we're getting more than superficial reporting on the decision makers in US and Britain both. It just seems too easy for Iran to make the menacing actions it has. If they are surprised by any of this then we are in bad shape.
1
"serious consequences" forsooth! Thank heavens they didn't say "very serious consequences."
The Brits haven't been on right side of an issue for more than two generations. Like spinless poodles they followed our lead into Iraq, and now they are being led by the nose by a trump of a man. What a tragedy for a country that gave us moral giants like Russell, Mill, and Milton.
2
Human life threatened by power wielding Autocrats (current US President wana be) , ah the Art of the Deal. I think oil dependency world wide is still very high, in 30 years when Oil is dead and renewable (almost free), inexhaustible energy is prevalent, Sikes / Pico's work will drift like the sand dunes they divided up.
1
The crux of this story is whether the British seizure of the Iranian tanker was legal and proper. Sadly, this story does not provide that answer.
In a broader sense, it's difficult not to see this growing conflict as the spawn of Trump's troubled mind.
2
The Iranian Mullahs deserve no sympathies. But no one can deny that they tried to move with the world when the 2015 nuclear deal was agreed to. By undoing that agreement, the USA literally spitted on the Mullahs.
The rest of the world now has to make a choice between the Right and the Might.The US, Israeli, and also Saudi leaderships have chosen the path of might. Already powerful naval forces are present in or close to Iranian waters. The USA is their leader.
Clearly, cool heads have to take control. The US Congress, in particular, has to step forward to avoid charges of supporting might over right.
2
"in violation of European Union embargoes" since when does this oblige Iran to comply? just asking.
1
I'm not usually a conspiracy theorist but perhaps the NYT could investigate the story doing the rounds that it was the US who urged the UK to seize the Iranian tanker (that started this mess) because the US said that it was headed for Syria (which Iran denies). Is Bolton trying to use the UK as pretext for heavier sanctions and an excuse for military action?
1
This whole thing is a joke. The UK is in no position to be playing a low tier lieutenant for Trump. Iran will absolutely impound their 2 ship navy in the Persian Gulf, just like that tanker which was pinched with the HMS Montrose looking on and powerless to intervene. the Pentagon is not interested in picking a fight with the Iranians either for fear that Iran will burn down the whole house. Sooner or later the UK will release the iranian tanker, followed by ran doing the same. Intimidation with Iran won't work.
2
Iran is playing this geopolitical game like a musical instrument, the question has to be why it is hitting these precise notes. Toying with the USA and now bringing in Britain - at this time. And to what degree is either China or Russia in the backroom?
This is not a game clearly, but there are some calculated moves here by Iran - that should not illicit predictable D.O.D. knee-jerk reactions, or deeper into a dangerous trap the US will find itself I suspect.
If we’re going to have a war in the Middle East, what better contestants could we have? Everyone stand back and let a couple of tired old empires have at it. No principles, no allies, and no holds barred! 1982 all over, what could possibly go Wrong?
1
So the UK/Gibraltar confiscated the Iranian ship with Indian crew and Iran confiscated the British flagged ship also with Indian crew. Gibraltar decides to release the Indian crew without pressing any charges. Apparently, the charges are bogus and won't stand a court of law. Also, Iran tells India its citizens would be released soon and treated well.
So much for accusations about illegalities committed by the ships!
Something tells me both Iran and UK are doing empty posturing. Maybe there was no Syria supply and there was no polluting the water. It's two ponchos trying to fight over each other's toys. Perhaps, they should take this fight elsewhere and let the Indian sailors do the needful :)
3
The revolutionary guards in Iran believe that a limited war will be good for them by plunging the oil market into crisis and forcing the world to side with them. It will be war unless the Americans and Brits cut bait and run
1
Bullying nations like Iran and Russia need to be stood up to. It's the only language they understand. Britain is in a weak position with a transitional leadership and a Brexit problem. It has also run down its navy. The US suggestion of a naval coalition to cover the passage of trade through the Gulf is in the circumstances a sensible one.
The US needs to move past thinking that it has the right to control the governments of every nation on earth. Many people here do not like the current government in Iran and they erroneously believe that gives them the right to change it to better suite their desires. But Iran is a sovereign nation with the ability and the right to choose its own government, regardless of how the far right feels in the US. Iran understandably is wary of US interference in their internal affairs after our imposition of the shah who repressed that country for many years and at our orders.
So the world had moved past that ugly mess which was largely caused by the US and Britain in the first place and had reached a workable accord with Iran. It was functioning as intended to control Iran's nuclear ambitions even if it did not make Iran a client state of the US, doing only what it was told. But Trump blew that up on an ill informed whim and now the entire situation is quickly unraveling, potentially leading to more unnecessary war.
That might be too many words and too many ideas for a Trump believer to follow but that is why thinking people around the world say that the actions of the US caused this current crisis. As long as we are ruled by an uninformed child who throws years of hard won accomplishments away like a child with a broken toy, the world will never trust us and we will no longer be in a position to influence it by any means other than our massive military.
7
@Jim Dickinson
It looks like the U.K. and the US are bent on doing a replay of Iraq. You are right, our colonial powers and hubris have caused havoc around the world for far too long. It’s time to end the trillion a year war budget, voted for by both parties, and begin to address our domestic needs in a serious fashion. With a handful of rich prospering at the expense of everyone else, they are many and the list is long.
3
The authors strongly imply twice that the President started this round. The tension has two sides to it. Iran has been carrying out hostile activities and blackmail for 40 years. Appeasement by the previous American administration, the infusion of hundreds of billions$ in protection money, and European efforts to evade the American sanctions procedures also brought us to the present impasse.
6
@policy If Iran, as you say has been carrying out hostilities and blackmail for the past forty years how would you describe our actions in the Middle East since the 1950's. I'm not defending Iran but please review all facts and try to look at both sides of the history of the hostilities and consider the fact that Iran had transferred much of it's Nuclear Material out of the country and had been in compliance with the Nuclear Agreement prior to Trump withdrawing from the agreement and threatening our allies with financial sanctions if they remained in compliance with the JCPOCA. Trump has created this situation - and we Americans nor should the Europeans be held responsible for it nor should we in any way defend it or support a war over it.
3
No. It all started when GB and the US overthrew a Democratic government in Iran to put the Shah in power so BP would not have to pay their fair share for Iranian oil. Everything goes back to WW One and the British cheating the Iranians on oil.
2
@policy Exactly. These writers of the article are clearly distorting the reality of the situation. You hit the nail on its head. I'm not a Trump fan, but I'm tired of the NYT twisting the truth to make Trump look bad. Sometimes it's best just to tell the truth.
Just talk. Quite certain a grubby compromise is being worked out behind closed doors - we’re in no fit state to do anything. The mess of the last few years has left the public angry, divided and in no mood to back a military distraction, with little trust in the competence of our politicians or indeed confidence in them. An already overloaded Whitehall is focused solely on Brexit (and even what is being done is inadequate!), it is taking up every demand of every govt department. The negotiation shambles has left us strategically and diplomatically weak, with loss of respect, clout, reputation for competent pragmatism etc. And we’re about to have a changeover if government! Hollow threats is all we have.
Being isolated and weak allows the circling vultures to strike - I don’t mean Iran either. Iran taking the Stena is revenge for our impounding of the Grace 1. We’ve tried walking a fine line between Trump and the JCPOA, but we’ve been suckered. The Guardian today says Bolton fed the satellite data to us, encouraging the capture and forcing us to unambiguously side with the US’.
It’s a clever ploy, if indeed true - for the latter part relies on us blundering into the trap. And we have. Our government are distracted by a leadership campaign to replace the PM. One of the candidates is Jeremy Hunt, head of the Foreign Office. Someone - we don’t know who - perhaps did not have their eye on the ball when they rashly ordered the military in Gibraltar to seize the Grace 1...
13
Did the US down a drone?
2
If this becomes a war we shall have to call it “Trump’s War” because it wouldn’t exist without Trump’s foreign policies. Maybe we can draft his family to fight it.
Whatever shortcomings there were, Iran was complying with the 2015 agreement up until Trump tore it up. Trump promised a “better” deal, but instead we have now an ever escalating situation and an Iran that is quickly restarting it’s nuclear program.
Same situation with China. Tariffs doesn’t work when you’ve pushed them in a corner and give them no way to save face. It becomes an issue of protecting their national pride and identity. Hence the stalemate we have with China.
What a productive foreign policy!
12
Considering the current state of incompetence and buffoonery in both upper echelons of the British and US government, the best the world can hope for is that wiser heads, both diplomatic and military, are operating behind the scenes.
What a fall from grace since the time of WWII, when giants like Churchill, Roosevelt, George. C. Marshall, Henry Stimson, and Dwight Eisenhower walked the earth.
6
There's a mistake in report.
Abbas Ali Kadkhodayi isn't the revolutionary gurad's spokesman.
He is the spokesman to the Guardian Council of Constitution.
Gen. Ramazan Sharif is the spokesman to Iran Revolutionary Gurad Forces.
3
The Iranian Ayatollahs, Revolutionary Guards and Quds are so strategically inept, It is almost comical. The last 40 years of their ideological hatred for Israel and American has repeatedly served to harm their own self-interests. Under the Shah, Iran was the regional superpower because the Shah was an American ally. If the Iranians would simply cease and desist from burning US and Israeli flags and stop threatening to destroy Israel, they would be so much further along in regard to exerting hegemony. Just as in Cool Hand Luke, the movie, Iran seems to enjoy not doing things the easy way. They don't have to love Israel or America, but they do themselves no favors publicly hating and attacking US and Israeli, Saudi, UAE Jordanian and Egyptian interests. Their sponsorship of proxy terror and their desire to export their revolution has a price. Ideologues tend to be very poor tacticians and even worse strategists. Trump is the President the Ayatollahs deserve and in many ways is the logical counterweight to prior American, European, Russian and Chinese appeasement and collaboration with Iran. Countries like Iran make it more likely that Trump will be re-elected. In fact, Iran helps Trump every time it engaged in bellicose acts or piracy and war.
14
@American Akita Team -- much of what you write is accurate but seen only through an American lens. Iran may have been a regional superpower under the Shah -- which suited the Americans because they were selling a lot of arms to him -- but the Shah was a murderous dictator deposed by his own people. The people who replaced him are inept and incompetent as you say, but it is for this reason that they continue to stoke hatred for America and Israel. It distracts from their shortcomings in true Trumpian style and unites the people. I lived in Iran under the Shah and during the first stages of the Revolution and can tell you that the mood at the time was: anybody would be better than this despot. So they chose Ayatollah Khomeini. Unfortunately, they turned out to be wrong. The current regime is worse than the Shah's regime. So stoking hatred of America and Israel is good politics -- rather like Trump's war on immigrants. Plays to the base.
4
Absolute nonsense. The threatening rhetoric was raised to its current level when Dubya insulted the entire Iranian nation with his Axis of Evil epithet, and this even after Iran gave the U.S. invaluable assistance to defeat the Taleban in the aftermath of 9/11.
The U.S.'s protection of the Wahhabi regime in Saudi Arabia, and its blind support of Israeli expansionism, are the principal causes of Radical Islam and chaos in the Middle East. Iran, warts and all, is an angel in comparison. Iran did not murder two million Middle Easterners in the past 16 years. Guess who did.
4
American insularity at its finest. You're fooling no one but yourself, but you have unwittingly and transparently revealed one basic truth in your comment, the tail does indeed wag the dog... US foreign policy is directed by and in the national interest of one country to the exclusion of the interests of the rest of the entire world, including the US itself.
4
[Trump] "threatened the “obliteration” of parts of Iran if it targeted “anything American.”
Language like this suggests Trump is contemplating the use of nuclear weapons in a conflict Congress has not clearly authorized. In other words, Trump threatens implicitly to start a nuclear conflict on his own. Should Congress "wait for the smoking gun" of Trump's unconstitutional assertion of power to "come in the form of a mushroom cloud"?
This man is not fit to be president, to wield the awesome powers of the office. He demonstrates that every single day, indeed every time he opens his mouth. (I wonder if Ivanka has taken his nuclear codes away from him yet ....)
6
Unbelievable that so many comments here are defending Iran!
Blinded by their animosity for Trump.
Anyway, it’s a good thing we are no longer beholden to the Middle East for our oil and gas.
20
Take the blinkers off and maybe you'll see you're just wrong, period?
I'm not holding my breath, as"American exceptionalism" is a doctrine that has withstood the test of time .
3
@Steven - I enjoy reading the opinions In various newspapers to get a feel for what others are thinking and I have to tell you that the majority are defending Iran. Why? Because we are wrong and everyone knows it.
1
@Steven -- Unlike the United States, Iran is not constantly attacking and attempting to overthrow the governments in numerous countries. Name one war Iran has started in the last 100 years.
3
Trump is the POTUS Iran deserves after 40 years of terror, flouting international law, weapons proliferation, proxy war, and attacks on US and allies via proxies. I hope Iran enjoys the bitter harvest they are reaping - all which is attributable to the enormous antipathy toward the US and Israel. If like the Shah, they simply dropped the rhetoric, they would find themselves in a much stronger position as the natural regional super power. Yet they continue to make life as difficult for themselves as possible. It seems they have not learned how to choose their enemies wisely. Who your enemies are is perhaps more important than who your friends are. Hard to believe the Ayatollahs and their IRG and Quds henchmen are so totally lacking in strategic vision. Yes Trump is the President Iran deserves!!!!
8
It‘s the Saudi Connection speaking here. There has been no evidence whatsoever that Iran broke the deal, it‘s just Trump fulfilling his own deal with bin Saman
6
These regimes like Iran and North Korea only gain credibility with the world in so far as they can extort the world with threats of great harm if they don't get what they want. Iran thought they could threaten the world with their proxy armies throughout the middle east and their hijacking of commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, and their development of an Islamic bomb. The world has payback coming for them.
6
"The crisis has caught Britain at a singularly vulnerable moment."
Maybe they shouldn't have seized the Iranian tanker two weeks ago?
And you gotta a love our corporate-media's spin: when the Brits do it, it's called "impounding". When Iran does it, it's a "capture", a "seizure" with "serious consequences".
Goebbels would be impressed by such obsequiousness to power.
16
U.S. of America. Please, please take care.
Mr. Bolton and his national security team, using the UK, is right now directly involved in manufacturing a war in the Middle East.
Your president might not even be aware of it.
But you, US citizens, must stop this. Call your representative, your Senator. Stop it!
8
@Daniel R from Switzerland
Any "advice coming from Switzerland i immediately a "suspect".
Too bad Switzerland has done nothing - nothin except good business - with Nazi Germany. Had they, they could have prevented WW-2
Tongue in cheek, of course.
3
@Jak When was this, 1940's , relevance?
(non esoteric, cob web strength associations withstanding).
1
Great mature worldview. I would like to subscribe to it: shall I stop listening to people from countries that employed slavery a bunch of generations ago? Possibly I should stop speaking with my family as well, after all Romans had slaves.
1
This business is ridiculous. Britain has one of their tankers, and they have a British tanker. What are they going to do? Go to war perhaps over a couple of tankers that they could easily swap?
This business will make it difficult to organise an international flotilla to protect shipping in the Persian Gulf, because any prospective participant has to realise that they could be drawn into a war by the vagaries of British or American policy. Policy decisions outside of their control.
4
What can the English do? They do not have a government, direction, or answers for Brexit. They are a mess.
5
Britain threatening any country these days reminds me of that old Peter Sellers movie "The Mouse that Roared". Except now, Britain is Grand Fenwick and Boris Johnson is Field Marshall Bascombe. It was just plain stupid to seize that tanker on Trump's behest. And it will not be funny for any of us if Britain cannot find the courage to back down gracefully.
7
Ha! Oh for a time of polite diplomacy when you could “back down gracefully” without incurring wrathful judgement from a tweeting racist and would-be autocrat who loathes that which he believes to be “weak”!
And now I’m going to bang my head repeatedly on a desk while I sob for the state of my country and it’s near-daily humiliations at the moment.
4
@Bill B
So much for moral fortitude.
@Bill B
Why don't you compare the Tonnage of the Montrose and her Sister Ship now in the area to ANYTHING Iran has and see if your comment makes any sense at all. Britain is no longer the Naval Superpower they used to be but they are still a Naval Power with a Blue Water Navy.
" ... President Trump ... set the current cycle of confrontation in motion by attempting to squeeze Iran into renegotiating a 2015 nuclear accord with world powers ... tensions that last month brought the United States within minutes of a military strike against targets in Iran ... " A POTUS who is a chest beating narcissist, and who will say and do anything to look tough for his base. What could possibly go wrong?
15
Robin Niblett wonders if it is worth continuing to fight with Trump. Perhaps he should check with Neville Chamberlain. If he can find him.
8
The whole Iran crisis has been accelerated due to Trump withdrawing from the Iran deal. But UK warning Iran of serious consequences? It would be great to know what they are. Without US, neither UK nor EU can engage in any military effort. But one thing UK can do to get back at Iranian regime is to enforce the newly passed anti money laundering real-estate laws in London for all Iranians connected to the regime through tentacled connections. Most of the corrupt probably have stashed their money in London as they won't trust their own regime
14
That they won’t do, Middle East cash drives central London
5
Like it or not.. Britain is in no direct position to taunt or provoke Iran. Britain vs Iran..... in any ground conflict Iran wins. At sea.. Britain wins. But really... both nations lose if it comes to open conflict.
And unfortunately.... if things go sideways.. all NATO member nations are required to come to Britains aid. In other words.. more young American soldiers will die in the middle east.. a place where we have no business fighting wars... not even because of oil strategy (the US is no longer strongly dependent on the flow of middle east oil).
6
@Chuck
Collective defence means that an attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies. The first time NATO invoked that was after 911, when the USA was attacked. NATO countries then became involved in Afghanistan in order to protect the USA. Please remember that.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm
2
A tragi-comedy. You are suggesting that 'collective defence' requires 'collective attack' based on a barrel full of lies?
@NorthernFlutterby
Never underestimate the capabilities of Britain or the US to set up clever taunt or pretext, or even a false flag event in order to make Iran appear to be an aggressor against a NATO member nation.
If the US or Britain want a war with Iran, and want NATO cooperation.. they certainly know how to manipulate things in the direction they want to go in.
It would be great, if the authors of this article understand that the EU can not and does not impose sanctions on other countries. It has only the legal mandate to impose sanctions to EU member states.
In other words, the seizure of the Iranian ship in Gibraltar was under EU rules illegal. EU member states like UK are free to impose additional national sanctions or support requests by the US (but shouldn't point the finger to the EU).
Recommendation: The US press shouldn't trust the claims of the US government (esp Bolton), but should rather verify reality.
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/sanctions/iran/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/20/gulf-crisis-tanker-retaliation-iran-hormuz
Carl Bildt, the former Swedish prime minister and co-chair of the European council on foreign relations, pinpointed the ambiguities of the British action in Gibraltar: “The legality of the UK seizure of a tanker heading for Syria with oil from Iran intrigues me. One refers to EU sanctions against Syria, but Iran is not a member of the EU. And the EU as a principle doesn’t impose its sanctions on others. That’s what the US does.”
BTW, The US sanctions on Iran are primarily meant to hit the EU economy (as the US industry wasn't allowed to have business with Iran to begin with). In case people are wondering, why there is lack of support to the US actions in the EU. Or, to put it more accurately, resistance.
https://twitter.com/carlbildt/status/994117770865532929
18
@MyComment. No, the sanctions are not meant for the EU. The EU, however, is desperate to do business with Iran.
1
@Jackson
The UK claimed EU sanctions as legal base for its actions. As explained above, there are no EU sanctions wrt to Iran shipping oil to Syria, hence the UK seizure is not covered by EU law.
Only the US employs secondary sanctions in its embargos(trade wars) impacting other sovereign countries
6
This surely points to how useless any EU sanctions are if they only impact on the EU itself, the question is why bother? This means that any rogue state can easily find alternative sources for any resources it needs so any sanctions are totally ineffectual.
3
There is an additional article in The Guardian focussing on Boltons part in it:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/20/britain-lured-into-deadly-trap-on-iran-by-trump-hawk-john-bolton?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
The plot thickens
10
So Britain can seize an Iranian ship but Iran can’t seize a British ship? Got it.
30
@Jeff S
The E.U. has sanctions saying no oil is to be shipped to Syria. The Iranian tanker was in E.U. waters (Gibraltar strait). Britain (as a member of the E.U.) detained the ship. All Iran needs to do is promise that the tanker is not delivering oil to Syria and it can go on it’s merry way.
9
I think there is a bit of a difference between the UK and Iran. The UK is a western country that abides by international law and Iran is a country led by a bunch of medieval Ayatollahs who have turned their country into barbarism and have a habit of propping up terrorist organisations like Hezbollah and Hamas and supports a brutal regime in Syria.
11
@Jeff S
It’s not the seizure of the ships that are in contention, it’s the way they were seized and why.
It appears that the Royal Navy stopped an Iranian ship after it deviated far from normal shipping routes in order to smuggle illegal fuel to the Asad regime in Syria. That would be well within the boundaries of UN regulations and international law.
The unprovoked seizure of a British flagged ship yesterday in International waters does not have the same justification. Period.
7
We need to strike back and strike back hard. The damage that Iran has done already, combined with their insults to British and American national honour require that we place some blood on the scales.
There’s an Iranian cargo ship near Italy right now. I would suggest sinking it (with or without rescuing the crew, depending on whose nationals they are) and conducting a limited cruise missile strike from one of the Royal Navy’s Astute-class submarines. I would recommend blowing up the Khomeini Mausoleum. That strikes me as a target that you could easily get at and that a dozen Tomahawks would do a hell of lot of damage to.
3
@Adam Yoshida
We have Iran cornered by hostile Sunni Muslims. The Taliban hate the Iranians who are Shiite. The Saudis and Gulf countries hate Iran for the same reason. The ISIS and Sunni half of Iraq hates them. The non Sunni Syrian leadership is allied with Iran but our goal is to destroy the leadership in Syria. The Sunni Shiite fight has been going on for a thousand years. How about an attack from the Afghan side and the Iraq side? And one of our subs could take out all the infrastructure in Iran using non nuclear warheads. Why just sink one cargo ship? John Bolton.....are you listening?
1
@Adam Yoshida
'We need to strike back and strike back hard' you say.
Who is this 'We'? Do you mean Canada? Hmmm...not sure Trudeau is the adult in anyone's room.
2
'British and American national honour' is an oxymoron, unless you consider the invasion of Iraq to have been 'honourable'.
Dear NYT: Can you get a comment from the government of India? How do they feel about the detention of their citizens by Iran? (Most of the crew are Indian; not sure about any other nationalities.)
10
Iran is cornered, without the ability to control their economy. Other Middle Eastern countries are not that far behind. As the world relies less on their oil shipments, they are left without the means to support their people. What happens to Iran, and other OPEC countries when their oil is no longer needed? What if it wasn’t sanctions causing there current economic problems, but the need for their oil disappeared? What will happen to these countries as the world goes green? This is only a preview of things to come. America should abandon the region immediately. It’s time to tap ANWR.
@Jay Please leave ANWR out of it! We need to come to our senses once and for all about getting away from fossil fuels.
3
@C.L.S. Until then, we cannot allow OPEC to control the worlds economy. We must be able to support the free worlds energy needs. We cannot allow the Middle East to keep us over a barrel until oil is no longer needed. We have the ability to stabilize the market until then. It is common sense to be prepared.
1
@Jay
Best way would be to take Mexico and Venezuela over. Their governments are worse than Iran's. Make it a political and economic union. Their citizens would become US citizens and be overjoyed. The US would be independent in oil for a long time.
1
Can't someone just rewrite the Iran agreement with a few changes to the wording and then tell Trump it was his idea?
Considering his disdain for reading, it shouldn't be difficult and a lot of trouble could be averted in the long run.
49
LOL! Great idea. That’s exactly what happened with NAFTA.
8
@TM
Novel idea.. but as they say... "you can't fix stupid".
9
@Théo
And I will continue to buy our fabulous local Canadian milk and cheese, and yoghurt (plus some European cheese now and then). New NAFTA rules won’t change that. Great dairy products made in Montreal too!
2
For all the people that will defend Iran and or blame Trump, your hatred of Trump clouds your judgement and exposes you as being unable to think rationally anymore.
This is a serious escalation on Iran’s part and any fall out is purely their own doing.
22
@Kev
Sure, and who in your family is willing to die in combat for Trump and Bolton's posturing?
I am sick of trading the lives of American soldiers for cheap oil. Oh, and many of those American soldiers are minorities and/or immigrants.
And, just to be clear, I do hate the draft dodging and tax evading Trump.
17
What about UK's seizures of Iranian tanker?
10
Has there been any evidence that Iran broke the treaty before Trump decided to cancel it?
2
This is an absurd and reckless attack on the peace of the world, and it has been caused totally by a U.S. President whose only motive is to risk other people's lives to do vengeance on the constructive work and reputation of his predecessor in office. To undertake something so reckless for so many people and for so petty a motive is an inversion of honor and decency so profound that it is beyond mere hatred of his own country. This is evil in action, fellow Americans, fellow citizens of the world, and it is being done nearly with impunity by the leaders of our own country. We have undertaken a wanton economic war on another nation of 80 million human beings for the sole purpose of provoking them to a response that will constitute a pretext for war and violence. Camus said he'd like to love justice and his country, too. It's not hatred of country but love of truth that compels honest Americans to recall Camus' statement today and tomorrow. If war does in fact come out of this, the American people will not do this with impunity. We will all pay a big price for it, now and in the future.
18
So is Britain now Trump’s new pet on a leash? Really, Is Boris Trump’s long lost twin?
13
Stena Impero isn't British-owned. It's owned by the Swedish company Stena Bulk. It does however sail under a British flag.
4
Yet people will blame Saudi , US for 'war mongering' Iran has been blowing up tankers and illegally seizing them for 2 months straight. No action has been taken to stop them.
9
Trump started this by pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal. He soils everything he touches, a group that now includes the British, the French and every other country dependent on Mideast oil.
Meanwhile, John Bolton becomes more aroused each day as his dream is realized to send other people’s children into war — except, of course, Trump’s kids.
61
@LIChef
Think of the havoc our “ foreign policies” have caused in the Middle East- Iraq, Afghanistan,, Syria, Libya, and now Iran. To what end - oil? To keep Bibi happy? When will our government work for peace and prosperity for our citizens, not oil magnates, oligarchs, and the Military Industrial Complex?
2
U.K. Warns Iran of ‘Serious Consequences’
When a dog messages by barking, I don't worry about it. The ones messaging without barking are of concern.
4
Iran can't seize ships in their waters. Only we can do that....
42
@Mike C. It's the Arabian Gulf, According to your logic Mexican ships can seize American ships in the Gulf
of Mexico?
8
Just details in some historian's notebook that takes a look with a fine-toothed comb how the next war evolved.
1
The USA, UK and Iran are playing "Do what I say, but not what I do", hope that nobody over acts!
5
Just because the Brits detained an Iranian ship near Gibraltar, whatever the circumstances may, the Iranians have no right to detain a British tanker sailing in the Persian Gulf. After all, it is not even Persian! It is an Arab Gulf.
This is so totally bonkers on the part of the Iranians!
9
@Dreamer
Although it's all inane militaristic machismo, it seems like Iran is more justified than England. It was an EU embargo but last time I checked Iran was not in the EU so why would EU laws apply to them in international waters? This does not mean I support supplying the Syrian regime with materiel but a trading bloc can't just tell other countries who they can trade with.
And if one country has a ship impounded by another country you can almost certainly expect a reciprocal action, and the Iranians even warned the British about it but the British didn't think it important enough to escort the tanker.
Nope, the British have nobody to blame but their own lazy, poorly thought out actions.
43
@Doug Drake, Excellent point!
1
I am not Trump fan by any means, and we should never have pulled out of the treaty, but Iran is playing with fire.
16
@confounded
Could be.. but we must keep in mind Trump started the fire.
And Israel and Saudi Arabia are goading him on... because they want to be in control of the region and that requires the destruction of Iran to fulfill their desire. Yet they lack the military might to do it... so they try to suck in the nation known for spending more on the military then the other top 10 nations combined.
8