Iran Intercepted Another Tanker-UK

[Kathianne]

Just caught this on tv. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49053383

[STTAB]

It's time to blockade their Navy.

You leave port, we sink you . End of story.

[Kathianne]

It's time to blockade their Navy.

You leave port, we sink you . End of story.

I'm waiting to find some coalition building.

[STTAB]

I'm waiting to find some coalition building.

We don't need a coalition to keep their entire Navy in port. Roll in the USS Ford and it's done (or whichever carrier is in that region at this time, I'm not entirely sure)

[Kathianne]

We don't need a coalition to keep their entire Navy in port. Roll in the USS Ford and it's done (or whichever carrier is in that region at this time, I'm not entirely sure)
You may not have noticed, but this admin isn’t pro going it alone.

[STTAB]

You may not have noticed, but this admin isn’t pro going it alone.

I've noticed. I just disagree with the view, and you may not have noticed, but I am usually spot on.

[Kathianne]

I've noticed. I just disagree with the view, and you may not have noticed, but I am usually spot on.

I'm listening to the President right now, his response was: 'We have a good relationship with UK, good ally. We'll be speaking with them more.' 'We don't really have many tankers, we have been growing our oil for the last 2 years, so we have mostly our military presence, but not so much our oil business.' (I see this as, 'if you want our help, you all better figure out what YOU'RE going to do.') More about how great things are here.

Now he's going after the 'squad.'

[Kathianne]

He's swinging between Democrats and Iran.

Just said, ' Iran is going to work out very well for us. They're on the ropes. Not worried.'

More, 'Hate our country.'

'Rand Paul wants to be involved with Iran, he asked. He's a friend of mine, but I have 53 friends in the Senate.' So if Paul is made an unofficial ambassador to Iran, I'd look at it as 'Iran will get settled, in our favor, which may be different than our allies.'

[Kathianne]

Looks to me, unlike yesterday, he's not upset about Iran today.

[Kathianne]

It's 2 tankers they took today. This seems to be a 'good sign' from the administration's perspective. I'm waiting to get more to understand their thinking.

[Kathianne]

It's 2 tankers they took today. This seems to be a 'good sign' from the administration's perspective. I'm waiting to get more to understand their thinking.
1 was UK flagged.
2nd was Liberian flagged, operated by UK.

[jimnyc]

US - UK - that would be more than enough for me! Send 'em in, only gonna get worse, IMO.

Break out the goodies and put them back 50 years and maybe using sailships. :)

I would seriously end this before it grows, IMO. And they will take more if they can, this is Iran after all.

Protect our interests first, and then I would just try to remain on the nuke installations and/or oil fields and away from citizens. I would have zero problem ending their installations and taking out a lot of their oil. Unfortunately, it's all they know, violence. So give it, but even better, take away their ability. These are horrid people and we know their history, what and who they support and it's time for "death to America" likely for them. I won't say nuke the entire place like I used to say, but they can easily take them back many years and show them "sanctions" in a way they will understand. But now, UK folks on these ships, they will use them as bartering tools. What a damn shame.

https://i.imgur.com/I768oPC.png

https://i.imgur.com/59X5q0q.png

F-35 vertical take-off

https://i.imgur.com/TGH3zUo.png

Time to go to work, gentlemen. Come back quickly and safely! If it really happens, Godspeed to all involved.

https://i.imgur.com/i24GfM2.png

:explosion:

[Kathianne]

President Trump seemed to be a bit off to me yesterday, distracted a bit.

Today? Doesn't seem very concerned, yes he condemned Iran, but seemed more angered at the squad.

Now it may be that he's already set things in motion or he's decided it really isn't 'our' problem. If others want us to act, they need to do so first. It may be a misdirect, but that's how it struck me while I was watching.

[jimnyc]

President Trump seemed to be a bit off to me yesterday, distracted a bit.

Today? Doesn't seem very concerned, yes he condemned Iran, but seemed more angered at the squad.

Now it may be that he's already set things in motion or he's decided it really isn't 'our' problem. If others want us to act, they need to do so first. It may be a misdirect, but that's how it struck me while I was watching.

I think it's the UK who has things in their possession, but as an ally, my choice would be to side by side with them without hesitation. I think the crappy deal that we're out of, and they making more demands about, is a piece of what they want. So they're doing what they can to disrupt the world in the Hormuz... but they got an ally of ours at the same time, and I think they know we would support them, hence why they did so, IMO.

If the UK asks, we do what they want to help their ships and citizens. I would even call and offer my help, but I don't think they would take my call. But definitely take the lead with our forces over there and join them without hesitation. That's JUST my opinion, now saying a better opinion or what they should do, just my little opinion on it. Now, if the UK says get the hell away, our shit is on the line, then we listen just as quickly. But I think the 2 together would be more than sufficient, but I also know folks like larger coalitions than two.

But they have ships over there too, bring them all together in the meantime, and monitor until any decision. They are obviously pushing for this. If me, I give them what they want via the air, his those things, hit communications too maybe, and of course whatever port or where the ships are located. No shock and awe crap - just towards facilities is enough shock and awe to set things back.

[Kathianne]

I think it's the UK who has things in their possession, but as an ally, my choice would be to side by side with them without hesitation. I think the crappy deal that we're out of, and they making more demands about, is a piece of what they want. So they're doing what they can to disrupt the world in the Hormuz... but they got an ally of ours at the same time, and I think they know we would support them, hence why they did so, IMO.

If the UK asks, we do what they want to help their ships and citizens. I would even call and offer my help, but I don't think they would take my call. But definitely take the lead with our forces over there and join them without hesitation. That's JUST my opinion, now saying a better opinion or what they should do, just my little opinion on it. Now, if the UK says get the hell away, our shit is on the line, then we listen just as quickly. But I think the 2 together would be more than sufficient, but I also know folks like larger coalitions than two.

But they have ships over there too, bring them all together in the meantime, and monitor until any decision. They are obviously pushing for this. If me, I give them what they want via the air, his those things, hit communications too maybe, and of course whatever port or where the ships are located. No shock and awe crap - just towards facilities is enough shock and awe to set things back.

I really don't know what we'll do. It's up to Iran and the President.

[jimnyc]

“Their crews comprise a range of nationalities, but we understand there are no British citizens on board either ship.

Now I hope they're together and readying things.

All they gotta do - Aim High, then - Fly-Fight-Win

[Kathianne]

He did say he's considering Rand Paul's offer to act as go between.

[Kathianne]

Regarding Paul, looks like more than considering:

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/453939-trump-confirms-he-authorized-rand-paul-to-negotiate-with-iran


...

President Trump on Friday confirmed he has authorized Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to negotiate with Iran over reducing tensions, reversing himself a day after he denied reports he permitted Paul to serve as an emissary to Tehran.


“Rand is a friend of mine, and Rand asked me if he could get involved. The answer is yes, and if the other senators ask me to get involved, I’d probably say yes depending on who they were,” Trump told reporters at the White House Friday. “I have many people involved, and Iran is going to work out very nicely. “

...

[Drummond]

This is still an ongoing story, of course.

The latest definite news is that Jeremy Hunt (Foreign Secretary) has chaired a 'COBRA' meeting at 10 Downing Street ... COBRA meetings are called at times when we have urgent and action-based security issues to be resolved. No news as yet as to what's come of that meeting.

Meanwhile, the BBC has been pontificating (.. they do it so well ..). Questions being asked go along the lines of 'Why are they picking on us, when the UK approach to the US-Iran nuclear deal was to side with trying to salvage it, and ease the sanctions issue'.

Consensus among commentators during BBC coverage of it (quite apart from our seizure of one of their tankers) seems to be that Iran's 'regard' for us is perhaps tainted by the US-UK 'special relationship' .. we're seen as more natural allies of the US than with the EU. So, they're inclined to punish us for it.

[This could just be, of course, the BBC trying to put the political boot in because we're still friendly with Donald Trump ...]

Typical of a pipsqueak power, isn't it, that they 'boldly and bravely' only pick on a power with a weaker military capability. Apparently the intervention of one of our warships, days ago, didn't teach them anything.

However .. hopefully, Jeremy Hunt WILL learn from this. His approach was to hope to defuse tensions, and this has been Iran's political response. Our people badly need to WAKE UP, and learn the true nature of forces against them.

This, with luck, will do it.

My belief: weaker or not, IF we've finally woken up to the truth of Iran's belligerence, we WILL find a meaningful response to this that Iran will find hard to swallow. I'm just waiting to see what it is.

[Gunny]

My money's on the UK acting before the US does.

[Kathianne]

I'm listening to news and it seems Iran let the Liberian flagged ship leave, but UK says they've yet to hear from the 23 crew of the UK flagged ship. England says they are under the Iranian military control.

The DOD says they are deploying more troops to Saudi Arabia. US planes are now in contact with any US ships, whether military or not.

UK has ordered all UK ships to stay out of Strait of Hormuz until further notice.

[LongTermGuy]

I'm waiting to find some coalition building.

No reason to "wait" we have some (and enough) that count already...Forget about France and Germany...to submissive .... weak and politically correct to do anything...

**Hannity had a good report on this already tonight on his show..

[Gunny]

I'm listening to news and it seems Iran let the Liberian flagged ship leave, but UK says they've yet to hear from the 23 crew of the UK flagged ship. England says they are under the Iranian military control.

The DOD says they are deploying more troops to Saudi Arabia. US planes are now in contact with any US ships, whether military or not.

UK has ordered all UK ships to stay out of Strait of Hormuz until further notice.Somebody's going to have to back down. Iran is going to demand concessions and are trying to use the rest of the people affected by the closure of the Strait (we are affected least) as leverage to turn others against us and pressure us to back off.

I am wondering what has brought Iran to this sudden, and as I see it desperate gamble that could easily escalate out of control. Then again, they're Persians so probably think they are driving the train :rolleyes:

[Kathianne]

Somebody's going to have to back down. Iran is going to demand concessions and are trying to use the rest of the people affected by the closure of the Strait (we are affected least) as leverage to turn others against us and pressure us to back off.

I am wondering what has brought Iran to this sudden, and as I see it desperate gamble that could easily escalate out of control. Then again, they're Persians so probably think they are driving the train :rolleyes:

According to the president and news talkers, it's because Iran is at the end of their rope due to sanctions.

[Drummond]

The usual semi-committal language is emanating from our people. 'Serious consequences' are promised if our remaining tanker isn't released (which says two things: one, we're still weighing options, and two, our people are hoping Iran will let the tanker go, meaning if they do, presumably there'll be no action !).

I think we're dithering.

I hope not.

[Kathianne]

News is saying that Britain is meeting and the US is trying to decide what they'll do if Britain asks for help. Thus is looks like Britain may be getting ready to act, as Gunny said.

[Gunny]

According to the president and news talkers, it's because Iran is at the end of their rope due to sanctions.I heard that. It could be. I can't really come up with another reason.

There's really nothing Iran can do to win anything if everyone concerned just shut them down. The Strait can be re-opened with gunboat diplomacy easy enough. So, being the GySgt that I am, I am looking for the something we aren't seeing.

[Gunny]

The usual semi-committal language is emanating from our people. 'Serious consequences' are promised if our remaining tanker isn't released (which says two things: one, we're still weighing options, and two, our people are hoping Iran will let the tanker go, meaning if they do, presumably there'll be no action !).

I think we're dithering.

I hope not.That's how Brits always sound to us :laugh: (not dithering, but the polite part :))

[Drummond]

News is saying that Britain is meeting and the US is trying to decide what they'll do if Britain asks for help. Thus is looks like Britain may be getting ready to act, as @Gunny (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=30) said.

Perhaps so. I for one don't want Iran to get away with this.

A message that would tell Iran we meant business would include a deadline by which Iran is expected to comply ... you don't issue a deadline if you don't also intend to back it up, if not complied with. But as yet, there's no suggestion of any deadline given to Iran. This'll send a softer, weaker message than otherwise. This is why I suspect there is an element of dithering involved.

We've also issued an 'advisory', telling British ships to avoid the area for the time being.

Bear in mind our current political climate .. our Prime Minister will be gone within days, a new PM will take over. If the Iranians were hoping for a 'power-vacuum' effect, their timing is impeccable. They want a weak response to this.

Story still ongoing ... and it's past my bedtime (after 4am here) ! When I wake up, I hope to hear a report that says what will be DONE about this.

If America does supply material aid (military), I for one will appreciate it. :salute:

[Gunny]

News is saying that Britain is meeting and the US is trying to decide what they'll do if Britain asks for help. Thus is looks like Britain may be getting ready to act, as @Gunny (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=30) said.They are attacking UK (flagged) shipping. We are their bestest friend :)

If the US and UK alone wanted to re-open the Gulf by force, not much could stop them.

[Drummond]

I heard that. It could be. I can't really come up with another reason.

There's really nothing Iran can do to win anything if everyone concerned just shut them down. The Strait can be re-opened with gunboat diplomacy easy enough. So, being the GySgt that I am, I am looking for the something we aren't seeing.

Our media have made the same point, saying that sanctions are biting hard. Which will mean that Iran will have to make its actions count, which in turn means that countering reactions HAVE to be tough ones. It isn't just that us Brits shouldn't dither ... we have to prevent even the appearance of it.

So, if there is an appreciable gap in any clear response, when it does come, it HAS to be a tough one.

I want to hear of one, in the shortest possible time.

What bothers me is that the UK political position on sanctions, and the whole ending of the nuke deal, was one where we wanted to be more conciliatory to Iran than the American side did, under Trump. If we're still mired in the hope of diplomacy finding a 'fudge' outcome, as we have been, recently .. how readily will the UK abandon it ? If we're still stupid enough not to, there's no way Tehran won't interpret that as weakness. Which is the last thing that's needed, obviously.

[Kathianne]

They are attacking UK (flagged) shipping. We are their bestest friend :)

If the US and UK alone wanted to re-open the Gulf by force, not much could stop them.

Maybe, but for the first time I can recall, it sounds like the US may not jump.

[Drummond]

Maybe, but for the first time I can recall, it sounds like the US may not jump.

In all honesty, after the disgusting Darroch business, I couldn't blame your side at all if it was reluctant to help. We're supposed to be a friend and ally; something Darroch betrayed, big-time. You appreciate a friend; you don't go around backstabbing that friend, as Darroch did.

Maybe this is one time when it might be a good thing if we totally stood on our own two feet over this. It's difficult to conclude that we don't deserve to, all things considered.

[Kathianne]

Our media have made the same point, saying that sanctions are biting hard. Which will mean that Iran will have to make its actions count, which in turn means that countering reactions HAVE to be tough ones. It isn't just that us Brits shouldn't dither ... we have to prevent even the appearance of it.

So, if there is an appreciable gap in any clear response, when it does come, it HAS to be a tough one.

I want to hear of one, in the shortest possible time.

What bothers me is that the UK political position on sanctions, and the whole ending of the nuke deal, was one where we wanted to be more conciliatory to Iran than the American side did, under Trump. If we're still mired in the hope of diplomacy finding a 'fudge' outcome, as we have been, recently .. how readily will the UK abandon it ? If we're still stupid enough not to, there's no way Tehran won't interpret that as weakness. Which is the last thing that's needed, obviously.


Looks like you called it, seems they basically have called on Iran to 'let their ship go...or face serious repercussions down the road...or something.' (I'm sorry, it reminds me of "Team America," and the strongly worded letter from the UN to Kim...

[Drummond]

Looks like you called it, seems they basically have called on Iran to 'let their ship go...or face serious repercussions down the road...or something.' (I'm sorry, it reminds me of "Team America," and the strongly worded letter from the UN to Kim...

The 'or something' is where we now stand, apparently.

I've woken up to learn that Jeremy Hunt has had 'stern words' with whatever (or whoever) the chief Iranian diplomat to hand is called ... where Jeremy's 'disappointment' has been firmly relayed to him.

There will be, it seems, 'serious consequences' if Iran doesn't correct what it's done.

And ... that's it.

Jeremy Hunt feels the way forward is to find a diplomatic solution.

Evidence that Iran is quaking in its boots has yet to emerge (.. but is expected, by Jingo, any time now !! ..) .. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Some good news ! France and Germany have (in a break from their combative Brexit posturings) come out in support of us. We know this is true, because they say so. What's more, the BBC confirms it ! That's all right, then ! Whoopee. :rolleyes:

-- So. Clearly, our people have yet to wake up to the truth of the nature of the regime they're dealing with. Who knows, maybe they never will. I think we have a psychology that's been spoonfed to us by our traitorous Left over generations, one of deference to foreign cultures, and it's reached such an emasculating pitch that we're strongly biased towards finding the weakest, most deferential outcomes to serious issues that we can.

Jeremy Hunt, apparently, buys into that psychology (I hope I'm wrong, and that he's just playing for time, & has other measures in mind) . Me ... I've hopes that if / when Boris Johnson wins the PM role, he'll show he is made of sterner stuff.

We'll see. That is, if we have any ships left, by that time ........

[Kathianne]

FOX is reporting that Hunt said, "No military action."

It's their ship, I don't see the US acting for this. If Britain won't, why would we?

Now I do think the US will be aggressive if defense for our own interests, including any military vessels we have in the area. The drone take down being the latest example.

[Drummond]

FOX is reporting that Hunt said, "No military action."

It's their ship, I don't see the US acting for this. If Britain won't, why would we?

Now I do think the US will be aggressive if defense for our own interests, including any military vessels we have in the area. The drone take down being the latest example.

Exactly. Couldn't agree more.

I think that your last paragraph helps explain why Iran is altogether more keen to take the UK on. Iran responds properly when shown strength (i.e they know some degree of caution is advisable). But, diplomacy ? Iran might see it as a means to manipulate, but otherwise, I don't think they have any time for it. I'm convinced they'll see Hunt's handling of all this as weak, maybe laughable, and if anything, they'll probably be spurred on to be even more belligerent in the face of it.

[Kathianne]

Exactly. Couldn't agree more.

I think that your last paragraph helps explain why Iran is altogether more keen to take the UK on. Iran responds properly when shown strength (i.e they know some degree of caution is advisable). But, diplomacy ? Iran might see it as a means to manipulate, but otherwise, I don't think they have any time for it. I'm convinced they'll see Hunt's handling of all this as weak, maybe laughable, and if anything, they'll probably be spurred on to be even more belligerent in the face of it.
I’m glad we’re sending more troops to the area, but Rand Paul too. That seems to be at The behest of Iran.

[jimnyc]

Just spoke 2 Iranian FM Zarif &expressed extreme disappointment that having assured me last Sat Iran wanted 2 deescalate situation they have behaved in the opposite way.This has 2 be about actions not words if we are to find a way through.British shipping must & will be protected

What I would have written to Iran:

"Iran has 24 hours to release our ships and any of our citizens. If not released, or if a single hair is harmed on any of our citizens bodies, you will feel the full weight of our military capabilities. Do not over-estimate your capabilities nor underestimate ours. Our determination is beyond measurement. You will be set back 50 years in various capabilities and sanctions will look like peanuts.

In addition, the United States of America stands by our side. With several carrier ships in waiting and bored men on battleships. Lead by the most sophisticated artillery and technology, the ability to decimate your abilities is a given. Jets in waiting and the best pilots in the world prepared to navigate them freely over all Iranian territory. Again, do not underestimate the support of our ally, who is already in the region. Do you know what a "big stick is?" - "America will remind you: A Great People Has Been Moved to Defend a Great Nation - They will not waver; they will not tire; they will not falter, and they will not fail. Peace and Freedom will prevail."


I can't say for sure about the 2nd portion, but I would love too!


A few updates:

HIJACK TERROR Dramatic moment Iran seizes Brit oil tanker as balaclava-clad commandos abseil onto deck from helicopter in the Gulf

DRAMATIC footage shows balaclava-clad Iranian commandos hijacking a British oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz.

Video released today captures the moment Tehran troops abseil onto the stricken ship with 23 crew on board last night.

Iran's Revolutionary Guard launched a gunboat and helicopter raid on the Stena Impero, which is registered in the UK, claiming it had turned off its tracker and ignored warnings.

Another vessel, the Mesdar, was also intercepted and forced towards Iranian territory in what appeared to be a co-ordinated strike.

Footage shows speedboats surrounding the stricken vessel before the commandos storm the ship.

Rest - https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9547897/iran-british-oil-tanker-seized-gulf/


Video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmdfgOFAbAc


Britain warns Iran of 'serious consequences' if British-flagged oil tanker not released

LONDON — Britain's Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt warned Iran of "serious consequences" if it does not release a British-flagged oil tanker it seized in the strategic Strait of Hormuz waterway on Friday, although he ruled out "military options."

Hunt announced later in a tweet that he had spoken with Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and "expressed extreme disappointment" that Iran had "behaved in the opposite way" of trying to deescalate the situation.

The seizing of the "Stena Impero" potentially marks the most significant escalation in tensions between Iran and the West since they began rising in May, about a year after the United States pulled out of an international accord aimed at Iran's nuclear program.

The Pentagon announced it authorized the movement of troops to Saudi Arabia as an "additional deterrent," adding to the 1,000 troops deployed to the Middle East in June.

The showdown has caused concerns around the globe, with each maneuver bringing fear that any misunderstanding or misstep by either side could lead to war.


Just spoke 2 Iranian FM Zarif &expressed extreme disappointment that having assured me last Sat Iran wanted 2 deescalate situation they have behaved in the opposite way.This has 2 be about actions not words if we are to find a way through.British shipping must & will be protected

— Jeremy Hunt (@Jeremy_Hunt) July 20, 2019

[jimnyc]

I’m glad we’re sending more troops to the area, but Rand Paul too. That seems to be at The behest of Iran.

From the past few months to the recent past - if they want the same, Rand is wasting time.

They spoke of a new deal - end all sanctions permanently for them to come back to peace. And also reinstating Obama's crap. Hopefully that's not what they push for!

[Kathianne]

From the past few months to the recent past - if they want the same, Rand is wasting time.

They spoke of a new deal - end all sanctions permanently for them to come back to peace. And also reinstating Obama's crap. Hopefully that's not what they push for!

He has the President's permission to go. Bottom line though, Iran asked for Rand Paul and got him.

[jimnyc]

He has the President's permission to go. Bottom line though, Iran asked for Rand Paul and got him.

Oh I have no issue with him going, and some form of resolution would be great. I just don't trust them in the slightest, and saw the crap demands they had to date.

With their refusal, even w/ sanctions, and ever growing threats - I am not sure if they are this stupid, or are they playing games to get a deal, and wouldn't go "too far".

That too far has been exceeded by many thoughts, and if not, perilously close.

[Kathianne]

Oh I have no issue with him going, and some form of resolution would be great. I just don't trust them in the slightest, and saw the crap demands they had to date.

With their refusal, even w/ sanctions, and ever growing threats - I am not sure if they are this stupid, or are they playing games to get a deal, and wouldn't go "too far".

That too far has been exceeded by many thoughts, and if not, perilously close.

I have to agree, they've really pushed by 'close.'

[Drummond]

What I would have written to Iran:

"Iran has 24 hours to release our ships and any of our citizens. If not released, or if a single hair is harmed on any of our citizens bodies, you will feel the full weight of our military capabilities. Do not over-estimate your capabilities nor underestimate ours. Our determination is beyond measurement. You will be set back 50 years in various capabilities and sanctions will look like peanuts.

In addition, the United States of America stands by our side. With several carrier ships in waiting and bored men on battleships. Lead by the most sophisticated artillery and technology, the ability to decimate your abilities is a given. Jets in waiting and the best pilots in the world prepared to navigate them freely over all Iranian territory. Again, do not underestimate the support of our ally, who is already in the region. Do you know what a "big stick is?" - "America will remind you: A Great People Has Been Moved to Defend a Great Nation - They will not waver; they will not tire; they will not falter, and they will not fail. Peace and Freedom will prevail."


I can't say for sure about the 2nd portion, but I would love too!


A few updates:

HIJACK TERROR Dramatic moment Iran seizes Brit oil tanker as balaclava-clad commandos abseil onto deck from helicopter in the Gulf

DRAMATIC footage shows balaclava-clad Iranian commandos hijacking a British oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz.

Video released today captures the moment Tehran troops abseil onto the stricken ship with 23 crew on board last night.

Iran's Revolutionary Guard launched a gunboat and helicopter raid on the Stena Impero, which is registered in the UK, claiming it had turned off its tracker and ignored warnings.

Another vessel, the Mesdar, was also intercepted and forced towards Iranian territory in what appeared to be a co-ordinated strike.

Footage shows speedboats surrounding the stricken vessel before the commandos storm the ship.

Rest - https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9547897/iran-british-oil-tanker-seized-gulf/


Video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmdfgOFAbAc


Britain warns Iran of 'serious consequences' if British-flagged oil tanker not released

LONDON — Britain's Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt warned Iran of "serious consequences" if it does not release a British-flagged oil tanker it seized in the strategic Strait of Hormuz waterway on Friday, although he ruled out "military options."

Hunt announced later in a tweet that he had spoken with Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and "expressed extreme disappointment" that Iran had "behaved in the opposite way" of trying to deescalate the situation.

The seizing of the "Stena Impero" potentially marks the most significant escalation in tensions between Iran and the West since they began rising in May, about a year after the United States pulled out of an international accord aimed at Iran's nuclear program.

The Pentagon announced it authorized the movement of troops to Saudi Arabia as an "additional deterrent," adding to the 1,000 troops deployed to the Middle East in June.

The showdown has caused concerns around the globe, with each maneuver bringing fear that any misunderstanding or misstep by either side could lead to war.

I like your draft.

You beat me to it. I planned to post that Jeremy Hunt had ratcheted up the stakes ... by saying he was now 'extremely disappointed' with Iran. :rolleyes:

Good to see that Jeremy so much as acknowledges the appropriateness of 'action' (though rules out military options ?), considering that just hours earlier, he was expressing a wish for a diplomatic solution. As for what that action is ... nobody, as yet, has a clue. Not military. Not just diplomatic ? Might he start typing increasingly rude Tweets at Iran ??

Aha -- a masterstroke. That'll teach 'em !!

An interesting feature of all this is that Jeremy Hunt is Boris Johnson's contender for the race to become Conservative Party leader, therefore, also our new PM. The outcome of that contest is just days away. How he handles this whole issue may have a pivotal bearing on his chances for beating Boris.

We have a test of Jeremy Hunt's Prime Ministerial mettle at a highly appropriate time. Jeremy must be aware of his situation. Will he win votes ? Will he lose them ? Is he fit to be our Prime Minister, coping with the 'tough times' in the job ?

We shall see.

Jeremy may become not just disappointed, but resolute, in the coming hours. Goody.

I'm betting Jeremy Corbyn will condemn him should he show any aggressive tendencies towards Iran ... Jeremy's a Leftie, don't y'know ...

[Gunny]

https://www.oann.com/iran-says-uk-flagged-tanker-ignored-distress-call-taken-to-bander-abbas/

I like this. The US perspective of a British-Iran issue :) The US gets injected at every chance :)

[Kathianne]

https://www.oann.com/iran-says-uk-flagged-tanker-ignored-distress-call-taken-to-bander-abbas/

I like this. The US perspective of a British-Iran issue :) The US gets injected at every chance :)

Yep, UK has been talking over themselves and with such inconsistency good luck.

First President Trump made it pretty clear on Friday that US doesn't need the oil, but will protect it's commercial and military assets.

Too many voices coming out of UK. "No escalation, no military confrontations." 'Hostile to take our ship.' 'You can have your ship back IF you promise it's not going to Syria!'
'Please give us our ship or we are going to really, really be mad!'

[Elessar]

If the UK, USA, France, and Germany gang up together - Iran will be ruined.

Not like Iraq where France was complicit with the Food for Oil deal that the UN
Sec General was in on.

Iran has no friends in that region except terrorists.

[Gunny]

Question: ( I really don't know) On WHOSE authority did the UK seize an Iranian ship? I know I'm asking a lot for some logic out of this crap :laugh:

the US reimposed sanctions on Iran. The other countries in the deal are still trying for a deal with a snake. Who else has sanctions on Iran and what are they using as authority to enforce them?

[Kathianne]

If the UK, USA, France, and Germany gang up together - Iran will be ruined.

Not like Iraq where France was complicit with the Food for Oil deal that the UN
Sec General was in on.

Iran has not friends in that region except terrorists.


What I heard this morning on FOX is that Europe in general does not want a coalition now with the US. They don't trust the US. As I said, this was on FOX and the talking heads agreed that it isn't a US fight, we can care for our interests.

I get brinkmanship. I get European leaders do not like President Trump. I get President Trump does not like them right back. I also get that if Iran is allowed to keep going as it is, there's going to be a problem.

[Kathianne]

Question: ( I really don't know) On WHOSE authority did the UK seize an Iranian ship? I know I'm asking a lot for some logic out of this crap :laugh:

the US reimposed sanctions on Iran. The other countries in the deal are still trying for a deal with a snake. Who else has sanctions on Iran and what are they using as authority to enforce them?


https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-warns-of-serious-consequences-over-british-oil-tanker-seized-by-iran/


...





France, Germany and the United Kingdom urged Iran to release a British-flagged oil tanker in the Gulf, amid escalating tensions between Tehran and the West.


"Yesterday's action in Gulf shows worrying signs Iran may be choosing a dangerous path of illegal and destabilizing behavior," U.K. Foreign Minister Jeremy Hunt said in a tweet Saturday. "Our reaction will be considered but robust."




The Stena Impero was seized in the Strait of Hormuz Friday by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. A second tanker, Liberian-flagged but British operated, was briefly seized and then released.


Earlier this month, the Royal Marines seized an Iranian oil tanker in Gibraltar on its way to Syria over suspicions it was in violation of EU sanctions. After threats of retaliation from Iran, London raised the threat level for British ships in Iranian waters to "critical," the highest level.

...

[Gunny]

https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-warns-of-serious-consequences-over-british-oil-tanker-seized-by-iran/I guess I missed that. Thanks Kathianne :)

So especially since the UK so far has not asked, it is not our business.

So ... the very people that want the deal with Iran are imposing sanctions on Iran. Yeah, THAT makes sense :rolleyes:

In the meantime, the President of the US has invoked the Rand Paul option to Iran to cause who knows what kind of mischief.

I see this working out well :smoke:

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Last I heard the UK was all huff'n and puff'n sounding all tough, release our ship or there'll be serious consequences to pay, blah, blah, blah... and now it's back peddle time?

And if all these leftist Europeans don't like our president enough to want our help, then fine, screw 'em. Let 'em get slapped around by Iran some more... whatever.

[Drummond]

Question: ( I really don't know) On WHOSE authority did the UK seize an Iranian ship? I know I'm asking a lot for some logic out of this crap :laugh:

the US reimposed sanctions on Iran. The other countries in the deal are still trying for a deal with a snake. Who else has sanctions on Iran and what are they using as authority to enforce them?

This, as it's turning out, is an interesting question. It's apparently difficult to get a proper answer.

I initially thought that it came out of a suspicion the Gibraltarian authorities had ... that they'd quickly consulted with London, and consensus was that action to seize the ship had to be taken to check things out.

But I've seen nothing (yet) online to back up that belief.

I've come across this .. one of a number of sources online for this same article:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/07/16/what-right-has-britain-to-seize-an-iranian-tanker-off-spain/

Pertinent quote:


.. Earlier this month, Royal Marines boarded a large Iranian tanker, the Grace 1 at Gibraltar, claiming it was transporting crude oil to be refined in President Assad’s Syria. This delivery of oil was said to be in breach of EU sanctions.

The problem here is that Iran is not an EU member and so no EU sanctions apply to it. Did Britain act at the prompting of America?

It is a matter of urgency to discover which Minister in London took it upon themselves to order such an operation, since it was almost bound to elicit an Iranian response.

The article is dated 21st July.

I don't know if I trust the article or not .. it has its biased direction ... such as:


A deal offering some sort of trade-off between the impounded Grace 1 and the Stena Impero is now an absolute priority for the new PM. While we are about it, the UK should reimburse Tehran the £400 million it owes for Chieftain tanks which Iran paid in the days of the Shah. We took the money but did not deliver the tanks.

.. Sympathy for how we've supposedly shafted Iran in times past (the writer has to go back several decades, for his example) !! And, the suggestion of a trade-off deal, which solves absolutely nothing about Iran's ongoing belligerence.

All that's currently clear is that the UK is - as the latest BBC news broadcast claims - exploring every possible diplomatic avenue it can to defuse things. So, yes. We want to talk. NOT to ACT.

I really want to see how this plays out for Jeremy Hunt's hopes of becoming PM. We should know in the next couple of days. Will Hunt's weakness harm his voter base, or, will Conservatives approve of his 'diplomacy at almost all costs' approach and think it 'enlightened' ?

[Kathianne]

This, as it's turning out, is an interesting question. It's apparently difficult to get a proper answer.

I initially thought that it came out of a suspicion the Gibraltarian authorities had ... that they'd quickly consulted with London, and consensus was that action to seize the ship had to be taken to check things out.

But I've seen nothing (yet) online to back up that belief.

I've come across this .. one of a number of sources online for this same article:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/07/16/what-right-has-britain-to-seize-an-iranian-tanker-off-spain/

Pertinent quote:



The article is dated 21st July.

I don't know if I trust the article or not .. it has its biased direction ... such as:



.. Sympathy for how we've supposedly shafted Iran in times past (the writer has to go back several decades, for his example) !! And, the suggestion of a trade-off deal, which solves absolutely nothing about Iran's ongoing belligerence.

All that's currently clear is that the UK is - as the latest BBC news broadcast claims - exploring every possible diplomatic avenue it can to defuse things. So, yes. We want to talk. NOT to ACT.

I really want to see how this plays out for Jeremy Hunt's hopes of becoming PM. We should know in the next couple of days. Will Hunt's weakness harm his voter base, or, will Conservatives approve of his 'diplomacy at almost all costs' approach and think it 'enlightened' ?


I'm not sure, but does this work?

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/sanctions/iran/

[Gunny]

This, as it's turning out, is an interesting question. It's apparently difficult to get a proper answer.

I initially thought that it came out of a suspicion the Gibraltarian authorities had ... that they'd quickly consulted with London, and consensus was that action to seize the ship had to be taken to check things out.

But I've seen nothing (yet) online to back up that belief.

I've come across this .. one of a number of sources online for this same article:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/07/16/what-right-has-britain-to-seize-an-iranian-tanker-off-spain/

Pertinent quote:



The article is dated 21st July.

I don't know if I trust the article or not .. it has its biased direction ... such as:



.. Sympathy for how we've supposedly shafted Iran in times past (the writer has to go back several decades, for his example) !! And, the suggestion of a trade-off deal, which solves absolutely nothing about Iran's ongoing belligerence.

All that's currently clear is that the UK is - as the latest BBC news broadcast claims - exploring every possible diplomatic avenue it can to defuse things. So, yes. We want to talk. NOT to ACT.

I really want to see how this plays out for Jeremy Hunt's hopes of becoming PM. We should know in the next couple of days. Will Hunt's weakness harm his voter base, or, will Conservatives approve of his 'diplomacy at almost all costs' approach and think it 'enlightened' ?I'm just trying to make sure I know who is doing what and why before opening my mouth :). If the UK sank an Iranian tanker it would be one less Iranian tanker in the world :). I just know all the talking heads have to be referencing (hiding behind) some authority or they surely would not act.

[Kathianne]

I'm just trying to make sure I know who is doing what and why before opening my mouth :). If the UK sank an Iranian tanker it would be one less Iranian tanker in the world :). I just know all the talking heads have to be referencing (hiding behind) some authority or they surely would not act.

I'm still hoping he will answer about the link I provided. I don't pretend to know the whys and what fors of the UK or EU.

[Kathianne]

I've been doing some things around the home, hadn't had time to do more than just check in and see what's going on here as a break from dust. ;)

Just looked to see what's what on "Iran" and this was top:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/21/jeremy-hunt-under-pressure-gulf-maritime-force-iran-uk-tanker


Jeremy Hunt under pressure to back plan for Gulf force as Iran digs in

Tehran signals it will not release British-flagged tanker until UK frees one of its vessels


The foreign secretary, Jeremy Hunt, is under intense pressure to join US-led plans for an international maritime protection force in the Gulf as signs grow that Iran is preparing for a long standoff over the British-flagged tanker it has detained.


As Tehran signalled it would refuse to release the Steno Impero until the UK released an Iranian-flagged ship seized off the coast of Gibraltar a fortnight ago, the British government faced accusations it had failed to sufficiently guard its shipping in the Gulf.


Adding to the tensions, the defence minister, Tobias Ellwood, said cuts had left the Royal Navy too small to manage Britain’s interests around the globe.


Senior Tory backbenchers including figures close to Boris Johnson, who is expected to become prime minister this week, are angry at the government’s reluctance to accept an offer from Washington to protect British vessels in the region. The capture of the Stena Impero on Friday was widely seen as an avoidable error for which ministers had ample warning.


...

[Gunny]

I've been doing some things around the home, hadn't had time to do more than just check in and see what's going on here as a break from dust. ;)

Just looked to see what's what on "Iran" and this was top:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/21/jeremy-hunt-under-pressure-gulf-maritime-force-iran-uk-tankerSimple. Empty the tanker and return it.

I feel for the Royal Navy. When I joined the Marine Corps in 1980, we still were getting and using equipment from the Vietnam War because our military had been neglected for 10 years. I think President Carter's failed rescue attempt in Iran pretty much stated as much to the world.

All of these dumbass leftwingers think they can talk their way into and out of everything. They weren't around when it was worked and fought for and think they are just entitled to it.

And they're sticking to it no matter how many times the bully hits them with a stick.

[Kathianne]

Simple. Empty the tanker and return it.

I feel for the Royal Navy. When I joined the Marine Corps in 1980, we still were getting and using equipment from the Vietnam War because our military had been neglected for 10 years. I think President Carter's failed rescue attempt in Iran pretty much stated as much to the world.

All of these dumbass leftwingers think they can talk their way into and out of everything. They weren't around when it was worked and fought for and think they are just entitled to it.

And they're sticking to it no matter how many times the bully hits them with a stick.


Yeah, you're preaching to the choir when it comes to my opinion on whether or not to use the military. IMO, it should only be used when it is determined that we can't get what we need or want through diplomacy and we ARE going to get it. THEN, let the military go and do what they are well trained for, then get them out.

Again, IMO, minimize civilian casualties, but do not go insane that when the military is loosed, things will happen. Persecute crimes, such as My Lai, but don't take everything that happens into a cause to go after the military and certainly not individuals without major proof of intent. War sucks. For the military on every side of the conflict. Abu Ghraib being an example of the US overreacting to a bad event, but not worthy of changing goals and objectives. That's my opinion.