Iran/US conflict

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

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.

True, plus I heard the through the grapevine that ten (10) percent of Iran is controlling 90% of Iran.

[Rockstar]

I wouldn't doubt Iran and Oman have a MOU which allows them to conduct certain operations in the others waters. Unfortunately U.S. and British warships are restricted to innocent passage when transiting the territorial waters of another nation. I dont think they can really do much else.

[Catfish]

It seems the UK seizing the tanker Grace 1 at Gibraltar acted under direct order from Washington.

"Legal Basis: Grace 1 headed for "wrong" addressees in Syria
There are no EU sanctions for importing oil into Syria - authorities in Gibraltar rely on the Start Regulation.
July 21, 2019, 18:27

The seizure of Grace 1 by the authorities of Gibraltar on 4 July is usually explained simply as "EU sanctions" against Syria. But it's about a start regulation.

Gibraltar extended the halting of Iranian oil tanker Grace 1 on Friday to mid-August. Only hours later, the Iranians in the Gulf of Oman grabbed a British ship. Although it was first given adventurous Ad-hoc reasons, but the connection with Gibraltar on the other hand is not disputed.

The seizure of Grace 1 on July 4 by the authorities of Gibraltar - which is British territory - is mostly explained medially simply with "EU sanctions" against Syria, where the Grace 1 was supposed to go. That has caused confusion. In fact, in the relevant EU regulations of 2012, which were last updated in 2019, there seems to be no oil import ban on Syria: only export of Syrian oil from regime-controlled areas is under embargo.

Controversial addressee

However, the legal basis for the retention of Grace 1 was served by a decree issued by the governor of Gibraltar: Grace 1's freight should therefore go to the Banias Refinery Company, which appears on the EU sanction list. This would not allow delivery through UK territorial waters. Spain, whose waters were previously affected, had done nothing, however. That's one of the reasons why Madrid does not comment on Grace 1 because it does not recognize Britain's claim to the waters off Gibraltar.

Interestingly, according to The Syria Report, just one day earlier, on July 3, Gibraltar had changed its own regulations that allowed it to stop Grace 1 on July 4: ships could be confiscated, the EU Break sanctions.

However, there are speculations that the authorities in Gibraltar acted under pressure from the US and London itself was almost taken by surprise. Although the rationale is EU law based, the decision could have been influenced by the US. The US is threatening with sanctions on countries involved in oil supplies to Syria. This also applies to the financial and logistical handling or insurance matters.

Panama withdraws registration

In any case, Panama, under whose flag the Grace 1 sailed, seems to follow Gibraltar's argument - or US pressure too. The Panama Maritime Authority deprived the ship of registration at the end of June, citing the suspicion that Grace 1 was dealing with "terrorist financing".

However, oil supplies to Syria have been on the rise in recent months, reports "The Syria Report," referring to Tanker Trackers. It is common knowledge that Iran and Russia supply oil to Syria. Most shipments have been through the Suez Canal. In early July, it was reported that the Egyptian authorities had prevented a Ukrainian oil tanker carrying Iranian oil from crossing the Channel for Syria. This was later denied by the Suez Canal Administration.

The Grace 1 sailed the much longer Gibraltar route because it was too heavy for the Suez Canal. It is a so-called VLCC, Very Large Crude Carrier, which can carry two million barrels (318 million liters) of oil fully loaded - which is the Grace 1. (Gudrun Harrer, 21.7.2019)"

From The Standard (translation by Google) https://www.derstandard.de/story/200...n-in-syrien-an

[Skybird]

From 2012, but the legal basis has not chnaged, I think:

https://www.asil.org/insights/volume...-block-passage

The UN treaty of 1982 has been signed but not ratified by Iran. However, Iran claims the right for a 12 nm zone (instead mof 3 nm) which saw its mentioning and fundament in right this treaty.

Personally, I think in case of conflict neither the US nor Iran would care too much for legal conditions, but would just do what they deem is in their military interest. Of course, the US would take much more flak from international opinion for doing so, than Iran. Also, the US (and the UK) would be exposed to a far more criitcla population at home. No doubt that world reaction to a conflict and actor's behaviour would base on double standards.

[Onkel Neal]

[Skybird]

There are strong hints that it was pressure, at leats determined requests from Washington that made the Britishmoving against that Iranian tanker at Gibraltar. One can safely assume that they already regret that they did. The action by the Iranians in the strait of Hormuz shows that having one or two isolated warships in that region, means nothing for protection of merchant and tanker traffic. The British fleet is just a shadow of its former self, the budget for defence as much under pressure as everywhere in the West except maybe the United States (who also were not present to help out the Brits over their tanker getting hijacked in obvious retribution). One can also doubt that London is eager to get drawn into another US-triggered war after the debacle of 2003.

The British position in all this is extremely weak and helpless. Modern technology on Britains few ships obviously is not as decisive as is assumed - if the fleet consists of indeed just so few vessels.

I imagine the new carrier would be ready already and equipped and be on station. How to protect that with such a small, if not even saying: minimalistic fleet...??? And Britain even builds TWO carriers again. I also imagine what the running costs for those carriers will do to the rest of the navy.

I also do not understand why Britain was so unprepoared and did not prohibit British ships to travel thorugh the strait, since retaliation by Itran was to be expected. That onely destroyer they sent, that lonely frigate that was there, both of them are hopelessly overchallenged. I read in a Swiss newspaper that a former British chief of staff said practically the same: and also said that the Royal Navy is unable to protect shipping lanes any longer, for the Hormuz strait alone the task would need a minimum of 6 frigate-class units on station (which means additonal units are needed to rotate units in and out). Instead : two lonely ships trying to stem the tide. What is London thinking?

British traders should have avoided the region at all cost since two weeks, since Gibraltar. What was so difficult in forseeing the events...???Why did London not gave order for that?

Some years ago Britain got its bum spanked by the Iranians when those Marines were captured on high sea. And now its the same. The radio protocol that Neal linked to, is an embarassment for Britain: honestly said, it made me laughing.


Only the US still has the ressources to maintain meaningful military presence around the globe. European nations should give up the idea of wanting to play in that league. These times are over, once and forever. Europe cannot even defend just itself in its own borders.

[Jimbuna]

Sky, whilst much of what you say rings some truth there is one undeniable fact. The UK even with six warships in the area is second only to the US in her military contribution.

Speaks volumes for the other countries that navigate the waters don't you think.

Seizure of assets and a trade embargo are now being given consideration so let us wait and see what our brave 'allies' are prepared to do/bring to the table.

[Jimbuna]

Iranian state media has released images of crew members on a British-flagged tanker that was seized in the Gulf.

Video footage and a photo appear to show cooks preparing meals and crew members being briefed by an Iranian official onboard the Stena Impero.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49074032

The real victims in this mess.

[moose1am]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

I wonder though what Iran (if it actually was Iran) is trying to achieve here.

Maybe they are trying to run up the price of oil so that they can make more money selling their oil that they smuggle out of Iran.

[moose1am]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Didn't the British ship that was nearby taken out the Iranian Helicopter before their commandos roped down to take over the British Oil Tanker. They could have shot that helicopter out of the sky. They should do that the next time IMHO. Iran needs to know that they are going to lose this war.

[Mr Quatro]

GB is slow to anger, but make no mistake when they do it will be in their favor

Ultimately, as Winston Churchill reminded us, we depend for our freedom and democracy on “rough men”

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by moose1am

Didn't the British ship that was nearby taken out the Iranian Helicopter before their commandos roped down to take over the British Oil Tanker. They could have shot that helicopter out of the sky. They should do that the next time IMHO. Iran needs to know that they are going to lose this war.

See my post #86 https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/sho...1&postcount=86

HMS Montrose was sixty minutes away.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

GB is slow to anger, but make no mistake when they do it will be in their favor

Only if they get strong backers ie USA.


Without them I am uncertain if UK has real viable military options on the table, as the straits are not some remote islands and the relative balance is now much worse for the UK than when the Empire stroke back.

[Aktungbby]

I note that the Iranians have an empty tanker; the Brits have a full tanker!...as per my previous post (#15): that's making the "have nots" have less! Points to Britain for the moment.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Sky, whilst much of what you say rings some truth there is one undeniable fact. The UK even with six warships in the area is second only to the US in her military contribution.

Speaks volumes for the other countries that navigate the waters don't you think.

Seizure of assets and a trade embargo are now being given consideration so let us wait and see what our brave 'allies' are prepared to do/bring to the table.

Indeed, but Lonbdon knew that it was standing alone in this and that there is no European military mission running currently. It helps nobody to plan on grounds of conditions that are not fulfilled. There will not be a shared ,military, meaningfzul military mission of European allie sin the gulf - and it wa slike that in the past two weeks since Gibraltar as well.


London played with fire while being extrenely ikllk-prepared and just hoped that it would get away with it. But the Iranians spoiled that hope,m they are int he far stronger position.


Jeremey Hunt today accepted the facts when indicating that the UK would not subscribe to the American plan of maximising pressure on Iran. Not after 2003, and not in the absence of European support. Lomndown will accept to negotiate an exchange - the embargo brekaing Tanker form Gibraltar freeed for the British tanker hijacked in the Strait of Horemuz. Which will be a big propaganda victory for Teheran, and a big embarassement once again for London. Assuming that mad Boris does not pull some realxyl crazy stuntk,l but he needs to cook his tea with water olike everybody else as well, and so his options will be as limited as they already are today.



Sorry, Jim, but while we both know that you are right ab out your complaint about the Ezuropeans, I nevertheless do not buy it as an arugment for the past moves of your govenrment. I think that it most oikely was a mix of Brexit chaos, Johnson eleciton threat, and mere incompetence in general in assessing the Iranians correctly. I mean the whole European strategy against Iran is a big erring. I say this since many years: Iran is not about giving up the bomb, the bomb is the only guarantee to keep the Americans away forever for sure. Either the West accepts a nuclear armed Iran sooner or later, with all the dirty consequences that will mean for Islamic terror and proliferation and a nculear arms race in the region, or it accepts the need to deny this option to Iran with the needed amount of military force - which will be a very very huge amount of force, more than Afghanistan or Iraq. This will not be about surgical strikes with scalpel-like tiny knifes, but a berserker'S party with broadswords and warhammers. I do not see that either Trump or any European has the will to carry this out. And just one night of Tomahawks strikes as a punishement for something will not get any signficant message across. Plus that Iran has the means and options to retaliate in asymmetrical ways.