The press are saying that the tanker was seized in Omani waters but I'm wondering why they let the second tanker go :hmmm:

I'm reading that there was a british war ship in the area
 

I read about a British warship in the area. But why didn't it prevent the capture of the other British oil tanker? I guess you can't be in two places at the same time. The tanker that was captured by Iran was heading into the Persian Gulf. Not sure which direction the other oil tanker was going. I think that the article I read was posted in Subsim today.

I dont think the Straits of Hormuz has any international waters. Every ship must at one time or another pass through someone's territorial water and will at such time be subject to their laws.

We're here now because of U.S. and E.U. sanctions in place to prevent the delivery of oil to the government of Syria. Iran obviously doesn't recognize those sanctions and seized a Brit tanker in an equivalent retaliation. By doing so I think gthey are effectively backing us into a corner. How far will we take it? Can we without losing face peacefully return the Iranian owned ship and still enforce sanctions? Or are we going to initiate another Operation Praying Mantis that would make the Revolutionary Guard think twice before doing something like that again.

I wonder where Iran's submarines are during all of this?

^ under close surveillance..

Indeed. I hope nobody twitches. :o

Yeah, hopefully they can keep him off his phone... oh, wait,... I misread "twitches" as "twitters"... my mistake...







<O>

British Airways and now also Lufthansa have cancelled their flights from and to Cairo, whereas the Egypt airline has increased in numbers such flights that could replace the cancelled ones.



Reason given is a general terrorism warning. - From Iran with love?

I hope this doesn't turn into something we don't like

A real mess of war, terrorism and suffering.

Markus

Evening news showed Iran's military guard taking the tanker over with machine guns and coming down from an helicopter with fast boats guarding them too, pretty wild all captured on film by Iran to show that they mean business. :yep:

HMS Montrose was sixty minutes away.

You are indeed correct and I've actually sailed those very Straits on a few occasions :)

My error, what I meant to say was that it is possible to transit the Straits without entering Iranian waters :oops:

https://i.imgur.com/aOIXbMI.jpg

The advise given by HMS Montrose via radio to the tanker as the scenario unfolded

It is all a bit ridiculous, so why not ask the obvious questions:

Why did Trump cancel the uran treaty with Iran.
How does the he want to bring about a regime change in Iran.

^


1. Because the treaty allowed Iran more breathing room (time, economic relief) to contonue and finalise the nuclear program without the West seriously resisting to it.


2. By trying to impose so much pressur eon civil socidety and private usiness that the situaiton collapsesa and the population would turn agaiunst its leadership, holding them repsiniosble for their suffering, not the Americnas. This attempt to breakl pulbic moral is doomed to fail, sicne the Iranians are extremely, VERY extremely patriotic people and both secular and orthodox, reölgipous and burgeoise people all rally aroudn their flag and leadership if pout uinder pressure from poutsiode. Trump wants to acchieve what already Saddam failed to acchieve. Trump is used to think that if he bullies the other, the other will give space and accept more compromrise to his disadvanatge, this is the TGrumpian idea of getting a better deal. But in that part of the world, such behaviour easily is seen as a loss of honour and face, and so they will not easily accept to behave like that.



Also it is about the terror support of Itran in the reigon and beyond. Lets not forget that Iran is one of the biggest terror financiers worldwide. That the west does not rule out totally, for principle reasons, to do any sort of business with it, shows what a rotten degenerated rathole the west itself already is.



I was in Iran for slonger time in the nineties. The first yout rtevolt was raging, hopes were that the US would support it, but the hope was disappointed, sinc eht eUs back then said: "You do it either our weay compeletly,m or its no way." But the younger peopoel back then did not want a Western style demicracy, they were far mroe prgmatic, I tell that from vis-a-vis experience. they wanted more access to media, less relgious censorship, less relgious diomiannce, more travel freedoms - THAT WAS IT. A wEtgsenr style demicracy they did not want. They did not want to copy the American model. They wnated Sharia-based state order and a constitution relfetcing that. They wanted to stay strictly orthodox Islamic. They were very pragmatic in their choice of freedoms, the great cultural and ideologic revolution it was not, and never ha sbeen. Pragmatic every-day-freedoms beign widened. One mullah told us that even the mullahs themselves had understood back then already that the revolution could not be attractive for the later generations for decades and decades to come.



Such a moderate shift towards more modern interpretation of a sharia.-based state wa snot what the US demanded, and so the US let the youth unrest mostly alone. Trump now wants to acheive the sam ething again - enforcing by brute econiomic force a chnage of Iranians ociety according to aemrican model and demand. It will not happen. He is making the enemy more bitter and more determined only.



We should have bombed the bomb programs components and sites from here into Mars orbit while that still had a chance of success, and else stayed away from Iran and kept it under strict isolation rules. What Trump tries economically has a much chance as what the Europeans tried: none. He just does not havbe a living image of these people'S mind and mentality. They tick not like he thinks they do. Reminds me a bit of WWII where they tried to shake civilian morale by bombing cities into the ground. The opposite happened. If you want to be successful with breaking public morale, you have to do it like the Russians and Assad did in Syria, and target the living indovodual population. You break morale by extincting the living people, and the weakest amongst them.



Its not nice. Its ironic, but the Western approach on Iran is way too subtle.

I think the obvious was brought up before. And it was determined that Iran was taking their new found wealth and investing heavily in military operations funding proxy wars in Iraq, Syria and Yemen.