Iran Seizes Two UK-Operated Tankers

Discussion in 'Middle East' started by APACHERAT, Jul 19, 2019.

  1. Sahba*

    Sahba* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2019
    Messages:
    2,192
    Likes Received:
    2,584
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    It defies logic, unless it's a geopolitical maneuver to oust Trump in 2020. North Korea w/ 'rocket man' launching his "duds" - Iran w/ the damn drones and oil tankers (spoiling for it), China w/ devaluation of currency / trade war (making their overworked workforce starve for pittens)...

    Obviously the betterment & strength of the USA, under Trump, is a diametric anathema to many geopolitical players. My $ .02 is that these geopolitical players will increasingly be F'n w/ us (namely w/ our President), in the hopes of facilitating a precipitous reversal of American vitality & solvency; w/ the ushering in of a 'wackadoodle' like Warren, Harris, Sanders... et.all.
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2019
    Ddyad likes this.
  2. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If course Iran has the right to ship oil to Syria. How is it that you figure they don't ?
     
  3. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is a complete load of carp and you know it. The EU embargo was in relation to Syrian oil coming to Europe - not Iranian oil going to Syria.
     
  4. Sahba*

    Sahba* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2019
    Messages:
    2,192
    Likes Received:
    2,584
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Look up the word 'sanctions'...
    Look up 'US sanctions on Iran'
    Look up why these sanctions have been in place... It's fine if you ardently disagree or agree w/ what U find out - just be informed... :)
     
  5. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What do US sanctions on Iran have to do with the EU embargo on Syrian oil to the EU. You have no clue what you are talking about.
     
  6. Pisa

    Pisa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2016
    Messages:
    4,157
    Likes Received:
    1,889
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    [​IMG]

    Again - here's the link to the statement issued by a senior barrister regarding the seizure of the Iranian oil:
    https://www.europeansanctions.com/2019/07/gibraltar-sanctions-laws-grace-1-designation/

    Please contact the senior barrister for further information on the case. She has a particular expertise in sanctions.

    Or keep reading globalresearch.

    Off topic: I'm curious. Globalresearch has some gushing pieces on the North Korean paradise. Do you, or do you not, approve of Trump's seemingly excellent relations with the North Korean dictator?
     
  7. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Obsessive carp disorder :) with a touch of denial issues as well.

    European Law does not accepted by Iran - or Syria for that matter - or the UN for that matter in the context of this case.

    Iran can do exactly the same thing in the Straits and it would be just as invalid - and you would be squawking like a chicken that has just seen a holy carp.
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2019
  8. Pisa

    Pisa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2016
    Messages:
    4,157
    Likes Received:
    1,889
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    European Law applies on European territory, just like Iranian law applies on Iranian territory. If European Law says no oil for Banyas refinery owner from European territory, then nobody in the world is allowed to send oil to Banyas refinery owner through European territory. Everybody in the world can send oil to Banyas refinery owner through any other territory than European territory, provided the laws in those other territories allow for oil being sent to Banyas refinery owner.

    Iran can do on its territory - including territorial waters - whatever its laws and international treaties it signed say Iran can do on its territory. If Iran doesn't want kilts on its territory, it can demand that kilts be kept out of its territory or else, and it can punish anyone with a kilt according to its own laws, even Scottish kilt wearers touring Iran.

    We can criticize laws of other countries, we can apply sanctions on other countries, but we can't break laws of other countries on their territories and expect to get away with it.
     
    Sahba* likes this.
  9. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113

    As I said to you numerous times - what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If nations are going to start restricting movement through these narrow straits on the basis that they are sovereign territory- this is really bad precedent. If Britain can do it .. then so can Iran.
     
    Woogs likes this.
  10. aenigma

    aenigma Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2015
    Messages:
    950
    Likes Received:
    305
    Trophy Points:
    63
    pretty sure ships from any nation enjoy the right of unimpeded transit passage in the strait of gibraltar regardless of international waters
    in other words you can't seize that ship or block passage just like that there.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_passage
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_sea

    so seems to me UK commited a act of piracy and got what it deserved
    personally i hope EU stays out of this and that Iran seizes another UK tanker to pressure them into releasing that ship
    aslong as they only do it to UK ships who cares
     
  11. Pisa

    Pisa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2016
    Messages:
    4,157
    Likes Received:
    1,889
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    I was attacked once by a goose. Believe me, I really enjoy seeing both goose and gander in same yummy sauce, but in this particular case, your goose is chicken and your gander is cucumber.

    International law says something about the right of innocent passage through straits and territorial waters. The question remains, what constitutes innocent passage, and what doesn't.

    The Iranian tanker wasn't seized in the narrow straits. It was seized in Gibraltar's territorial waters.
    [​IMG]

    https://www.europeansanctions.com/2019/07/gibraltar-sanctions-laws-grace-1-designation/

    The above quote tells us that enforcement of EU sanctions by Gibraltar was perfectly legal, Gibraltar's policies regarding sanctions having been publicly announced beforehand. Furthermore, the case has been brought before the Supreme Court of Gibraltar, which has extended the period of the detention of the Iranian tanker. Every action taken by Gibraltar and the Royal Marines has been perfectly legal according to both national and international laws.

    Here's the timeline of events:
    https://www.rivieramm.com/news-cont...w-about-detained-iranian-tanker-grace-1-55529

    According to Riviera, Stena Impero was in international waters when seized by Iran. Vesselfinder shows the British ship in international waters just before capture (spot marked by red lines):
    https://www.vesselfinder.com/?imo=9797400

    As I said, what's sauce for the Gibraltar territorial chicken, is not sauce for the Iranian extraterritorial cucumber. The former is a legal enforcement of sanctions, while the latter is piracy on high seas.
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2019
  12. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Although I really don't want to get involved in this nonsensical debate about the "legality" of the actions of each side, I did find it remarkable that you cite a source that gives the answer to the issue I had mentioned which you had questioned. From your own source:
    https://www.europeansanctions.com/2019/07/gibraltar-sanctions-laws-grace-1-designation/
     
  13. Pisa

    Pisa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2016
    Messages:
    4,157
    Likes Received:
    1,889
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    The Sanctions Act 2019, which made clear to everyone and their in-laws that Gibraltar is going to enforce EU sanctions on its territory, was adopted and published in March 2019.

    Sanctions Regulation 2019 is an additional legal tool, not the actual announcement regarding enforcement of EU sanctions.
     
  14. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nice attempt to move the goalposts - from justification on the basis of the EU embargo (something you previously claimed) to some nonsense about international law which makes no sense - especially given the Brits have claimed the EU embargo - not international law as justification -not that you actually cited any international law and made a legitimate case on that basis.

    You then post a map which clearly shows that it is impossible to pass through the straights without being in Spain's territorial waters. Your timeline does not actually state that the ship was in Gibraltar waters but it makes no difference as it is impossible to make it through the straights without being in someone's territorial waters.

    Point being - there are numerous straights throughout the world that are some nations territorial waters. That these nations can willy nilly start siezing ships in these areas (which is what you are claiming is legal) is very bad precedent and does not comply with the international laws of the sea.
     
  15. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sanctions Act 2019 authorized Gibraltar to enforce various sanctions in its territory, including EU sanctions, pursuant to then existing regulations. By its own, it had nothing to do with the supposed sanctions being violated by an Iranian tanker sailing hundreds of miles away from Syria on the "suspicion" by some authority in Gibraltar that it might be taking oil to the Syrian oil refinery. The legal measures to attempt to make this seizure appear anything but the piracy they in fact were are based on the regulations adopted a day before the seizure of the Iranian tanker.
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2019
  16. tkolter

    tkolter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,134
    Likes Received:
    598
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Where was the British Navy they need to be in there and the second Iran makes a threat to one of their tankers under their flag protect the ships by any and all means if needed. Then they can ask us for assistance as an ally and we can come in and show the flag and a carrier battle group.
     
  17. Woogs

    Woogs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2011
    Messages:
    8,382
    Likes Received:
    2,556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Since no one here is an expert on maritime law, how about looking at it from a common sense pov?

    If, as you say, the sanctions published in March were all that was needed to seize the ship, why would the Grace willingly sail into Gibraltar waters? Was it defecting to the Brits?

    Far more likely is that the Brits knew the Grace's path and rushed a law into effect that allowed them to seize the ship. The Grace, being completely unaware of what transpired on July 3, sailed right into a trap.

    This is piracy under the thinnest veneer of law (sanctions) enforcement.
     
  18. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The EU sanctions provisions, even when applicable and enforced, are applied once there has actually been a violation of such sanctions (e.g., in such a case, once the oil is delivered to the designated sanctioned entity). There is no EU sanction that authorizes seizure of a ship on "suspicion" it might be taking oil to this Syrian oil refinery. Which is why Gibraltar rushed and adopted this regulation when they were basically instructed to engage in this act of piracy.
     
  19. Woogs

    Woogs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2011
    Messages:
    8,382
    Likes Received:
    2,556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes; I was just taking Pisa's supposition at face value in order to not argue the point.

    Hopefully I made my point .... either the Captain of the Grace willfully surrendered his ship or it was seized in an act of piracy.

    My guess is the latter.
     
    Iranian Monitor likes this.
  20. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In your dreams. In the real world, the first tell tale sign that the US or anyone else is actually ready to fight Iran is when they take out their naval forces from the Persian Gulf. Operating in that area, they are mostly sitting ducks and can be taken out by Iran's coastal defenses.
     
  21. Woogs

    Woogs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2011
    Messages:
    8,382
    Likes Received:
    2,556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A couple items of interest:

    Russian National Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev was the sole voice defending Iran in historic trilateral talks Tuesday alongside White House national security adviser John Bolton and Israeli National Security Council Adviser Meir Ben-Shabbat in Jerusalem. As the U.S. and Israel hardened their stances against their mutual adversary amid heightened tensions in the Middle East, Russia has sought de-escalation and dismissed attempts to liken Iran to jihadis such as the Islamic State militant group (ISIS).

    "In the context of the statements made by our partners with regard to a major regional power, namely Iran, I would like to say the following: Iran has always been and remains our ally and partner, with which we are consistently developing relations both on bilateral basis and within multilateral formats," Patrushev said following the meeting that lasted more than two and a half hours, according to the state-run Tass Russian News Agency.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/russia-iran-us-israel-drone-ally-1445802?amp=1

    And ......

    As military and diplomatic tensions continue to flare between Washington and Tehran, Iran is moving to reassert its presence in the Persian Gulf-- with Russian help.

    Earlier this week, Rear Admiral of the Iranian Navy Hossein Khanzadi confirmed prior reports that Tehran and Moscow have signed an agreement to hold joint Naval drills: "Earlier, we signed an agreement [on joint exercises] with Russia’s Armed Forces and the Russian Fleet’s command. Soon the preparations and maneuvers’ planning will start and they will be carried out this year.”

    In a different statement, Khanzadi confirmed the location: “a joint Russian-Iranian exercise is expected to be held shortly in the Indian Ocean. The exercise may also be held in the northern part of the Indian Ocean, including in the Strait of Hormuz," the naval commander said.

    [​IMG]
    Khanzadi made no secret of whom these exercises are aimed against: "the situation in the Persian Gulf is absolutely calm," despite the fact that "the United States and the United Kingdom by their lies and bluff are trying to make this region look as unsafe and make it so."

    The Iranian side referred to the agreement as to “the first memorandum of understanding of this kind,” one that “may be considered as a turning point in relations of Tehran in Moscow along the defense trajectory."

    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/b...y-hold-joint-naval-drills-strait-hormuz-71661
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2019
    Iranian Monitor likes this.
  22. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    https://www.businessinsider.com/iran-is-jamming-ship-gps-navigation-systems-to-seize-them-2019-8
    Iran is reportedly jamming ship GPS navigation systems to get them to wander into Iranian waters
    p.s.
    You might recall what happened to the 2 riverline boats operated by the US navy not long ago. I don't think we still know all the facts about the incident, but this is a pretty good report anyway.

    https://www.propublica.org/article/...f-iran-what-really-happened-farsi-island-navy
    Trump Keeps Talking About the Last Military Standoff With Iran — Here’s What Really Happened
    In 2016, 10 sailors were captured by Iran. Trump is making it a political issue. Our investigation shows that it was a Navy failure, and the problems run deep.
     
  23. Pisa

    Pisa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2016
    Messages:
    4,157
    Likes Received:
    1,889
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    I didn't move the goalposts, I just answered your claim that Gibraltar and UK had violated international laws of the seas. That is your main argument. My position is that Gibraltar's actions were perfectly legal due to enactment of EU sanctions.

    It took me hours to research the topic. I didn't choose my sources according to personal biases, you know. Dismissing serious, non partisan sources such as the Riviera or World Maritime News, just because they don't agree with you, is a bit childish.

    I mentioned international law because we were talking about right of passage through straits. There's this:

    https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part3.htm

    Gibraltar exercised its sovereignty and jurisdiction over its territorial waters as per the above, hence the reference to international law - although I really don't think that Gibraltar's territorial waters are de facto or de jure in the straits. None of my sources mentioned anything about Grace 1 being in the straits when it was arrested by the Royal Navy.

    The timeline in my source clearly states that the Iranian ship was in Gibraltar's territorial waters:
    https://www.rivieramm.com/news-cont...w-about-detained-iranian-tanker-grace-1-55529

    BGTW -British Gibraltar Territorial Waters.

    Vessefinder offers tools to check the ship whereabouts:
    https://www.vesselfinder.com/vessels/GRACE-1-IMO-9116412-MMSI-355271000

    Have fun playing with it.

    And FYI, I seriously advise against trying to go through straights. They might not like it.
     
  24. Fred C Dobbs

    Fred C Dobbs Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2016
    Messages:
    19,496
    Likes Received:
    9,006
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
  25. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What a waste of everyone's time, discussing a clear act of piracy which Gibraltar tried to give an all too obviously fraudulent veneer of legality, by trying to connect unrelated issues into what was at the end nothing but a regulation adopted a day before the seizure of Iran's tanker to give it a pretext to do so. Since some people apparently don't understand the issue despite their "research", let me lay it out clearly:

    1- There are general EU sanctions prohibiting its members from importing oil from Syria and other sanctions which prohibit trade by EU members with designated entities, which include for instance this Syrian oil refinery.
    2- Unlike the US, the EU does not pretend that its sanctions regulations have extra territorial reach or can be applied to non EU members states and their conduct.
    3- There is no EU sanction that under any twisted interpretation could by itself justify seizing an Iranian tanker hundreds of miles from the Syria on the pretext that we "suspect" it is taking oil to an entity designated as off limits for EU trade by the EU. None.
    4- The regulation by Gibraltar adopted on 3 July was intended to cover up all this, jump over all the legal barriers that exist to any such action, by suddenly turning Gibraltar into a police force with powers to engage in preemptive seizure of ships some authority in Gibraltar could "reasonably suspect" was taking oil to a destination prohibited for trade with EU members.

    For Iran, this action actually sets up a nice precedent. And as Iran's president mentioned, if Iranian ships can't safely traverse the Gibraltar strait, British ships won't be able to traverse the Strait of Hormuz either. There is no reason why Iran needs to copy cat the British exercise in conjuring legal fiction to justify our act, but if it was necessary, I am sure we could come up with dozens of "regulations" (on top of many that already exist) to justify taking over any ship passing through the Straits of Hormuz. Many of them pass through Iranian territorial waters and the ones who don't, can be steered in that direction:)
     

Share This Page