This is true, since them lil Iranian boats had radio contact with that warship. Maybe it wasn't right next to the tanker. Than again, such a ship doesn't need to shoot anything at point blank range or else it's some miss.
It doesn't need to be right next to it in order to do something. You basically are continuously claiming a warship can only do something from point blank range. It is just idiotic.
A swarm of small boats surrounding an oil tanker. British ship fires from a distance. Brilliant!! I mean, nothing could go wrong, could it?
Look at the video. A swarm of small boats surrounded the ship while soldiers rappeled down to the deck from a helo. Champ.
Guess you need it italicized, bolded and underlined. Here you go. A swarm of small boats surrounded the ship while soldiers rappeled down to the deck *from a helo.*
And I said that all along. This happened, with the UK navy in the vicinity. I dunno why you think it would matter that the warship was not right next to it. It wouldn't have stopped the rappelling soldiers.
With regard to what transpired between the British warship and the Iranian vessels detaining the British tanker, you might find the audio exchanges just released by Iran illuminating. https://news.sky.com/story/iran-tol...-as-it-seized-british-flagged-tanker-11772670 Iran told UK warship 'not to interfere' as it seized British-flagged tanker
Not surprisingly perhaps, given who is as the helm of British foreign policy right now, the Brits have opted against being sensible and aren't apparently interested to release the pirated Iranian tanker in exchange for the British tanker. And so this story will apparently have no quick or happy ending for either side, as the Brits will fall ever more closely in line with the path set for them by the US/Israel. https://www.ft.com/content/2ba801b6-b1ff-11e9-bec9-fdcab53d6959 Dominic Raab rules out ‘barter’ over Iranian tanker UK foreign secretary rebuffs idea that seized vessels could be swapped https://www.news18.com/news/world/s...irate-after-british-ship-seizure-2252031.html Spotting Skull & Crossbones, Queen Elizabeth II Turned Into 'Pirate' by Iran Cartoonists After British Ship Seizure
pfft... I think it's time the British display some goodwill....until then the Iranians can keep their boats
The Brits are smart enough to know where and when and against whom to pick a fight. But they aren't smart enough apparently to realize that this fellow they have volunteered to serve as a poodle, doesn't take good care of his pets.
May I gently remind you that the British acted in conformity with EU decisions, not US sanctions. The ship was arrested due to an embargo on a Syrian individual. Nothing to do with sanctions on Iran. There are pretty good cartoonists outside Iran, too:
That was the pretext; an EU sanction against a Syrian oil refinery rushed and adopted something like a day before the Iranian tanker was seized on its scheduled route. Even many Brits know who hood winked them into this mess in the first place. And so do many Americans. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...deadly-trap-on-iran-by-trump-hawk-john-bolton https://www.theamericanconservative...ght-the-fuse-of-the-uk-iranian-tanker-crisis/
Prove that the sanctions on the owner of the Banyas refinery were adopted "something like a day" before the Iranian tanker reached Gibraltar. I doubt that very much, since embargoes are only legal if they are publicly announced beforehand, and I don't see any international body or NGO claiming the embargo is illegal. The opinions in the links you posted are based on wishful thinking. For instance, even though the information appears in its own source, the Guardian conveniently forgets to mention that it was Fabian Picardo, the chief minister of Gibraltar, who requested help from the Royal Marines to arrest the Iranian tanker. Not the caricatured British Queen, or the maligned British government. Is Fabian Picardo, the leader of the Gibraltar Socialist Labour Party, Bolton's poodle as well? Such a statement would be more than a bit of a stretch, a lot more... The americanconservative completely ignores basic definitions in international law, such as the definition of embargo. That article is not worth reading. The reason the EU is not backing UK is glaringly obvious: the EU is hellbent to maintain good relations with Iran, avoiding the spike in oil prices that would be a consequence of a conflict involving the straits of Hormuz. Europe has been hysterical about anything related to oil since the oil embargoes in the 70s.
The EU sanction used to justify seizure of the Iranian tanker and at issue in the legal proceedings in Gibraltar were already discussed by another poster here a few pages back, including the history of its adoption. In any case, what really matters is that to Iran this was a blatant act of piracy and Iran will deal with it accordingly. These other pseudo legal arguments mean zilch and won't play a role in how the issue is going to be treated, the same way no one in Britain will be truly focused on debunking the claim that the British tanker Iran seized was violating "international maritime regulations" or not.
Craig Murray on the UK taking of Grace 1 cont'd https://consortiumnews.com/2019/07/30/tanker-seizures-resurgent-imperialism/
While the UAE has slowly begun to distance itself from US policies against Iran. even the Saudis have been a lot more circumspect lately in this regard, with influential voices raising to question the direction set for them by the US, Israel and the ax saw murderer and butcher, Mohammad bin Salman. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20190805-saudi-royal-warns-against-involvement-in-war-with-iran/ Saudi royal warns against ‘involvement in war with Iran’
Also recent revelations have also settled the debate sparked by the earlier reports from Britain on the location of the British warship when the British tanker was seized, Based on more recent reports, including comments by the captain of the British warship, it is now clear that the British warship wasn't 1 hour away away when the tanker was seized, but rather that it had merely received 1 hour notice that the tanker was going to travel through the Strait, with the IRGC boats getting there 10-20 minutes before the British warship arrived at the scene. At the time of the radio contacts, the British warship was actually already in the "vicinity'. Certainly if it had not been (wisely) told by the MOD to stand down after it received a clear warning from the IRGC not to interfere and not to risk their lives, the British warship could have tried to interfere. (I am confident if it had interfered, it would ended up in a fire fight which would have seen the British warship sunk).
Not with useless May as PM. They could do nothing bexause they were running around like headless chickens. The Iranians read that a long time ago. The EU is like Sponge bob and its heads like Patric.
So you want to pretend the reaction would be different under another British PM? Let me remind folks here about two prior incidents where the vessel and personnel being captured by the IRGC belonged to the British royal navy itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Iranian_arrest_of_Royal_Navy_personnel 2007 Iranian arrest of Royal Navy personnel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Iranian_seizure_of_Royal_Navy_personnel 2004 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel
They couldn't do a thing, since their boats go right next to the shore of Iran, and so they can just do whatever.
