Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 165

Thread: 2019/2020 Iran - USA War... Getting There....

  1. #121
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    16,790

    Default Re: 2019 Iran - USA War... Almost

    Nevertheless, I'm fairly sure that for the US, Iran's predictable retaliation is a feature of the plan rather than a bug. Although, the Brits certainly appear under-prepared for it.
    Although so it seems was the US since it was escalating and relays on its rhetoric of freedom of the sea the 3 US located Cyclones should have and probably a least 6 sentinel class cutters should be in the Gulf. It would look better for the US if a ship had been on hand warn away the Iranians.
    Last edited by conon394; July 22, 2019 at 10:41 AM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  2. #122

    Default Re: 2019 Iran - USA War... Almost

    Quote Originally Posted by mongrel View Post
    Answer, Cameron's cuts. Gone are the days of Tony Blair, the wanabee warlord.
    The Royal Navy was downsized considerably under Blair too. Between 1997 and 2008 it lost 14 vessels including one aircraft carrier and found itself in the laughable position of having more admirals than it had warships. It has lacked the capacity to act independently for years.



  3. #123

    Default Re: 2019 Iran - USA War... Almost

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    The Royal Navy was downsized considerably under Blair too. Between 1997 and 2008 it lost 14 vessels including one aircraft carrier and found itself in the laughable position of having more admirals than it had warships. It has lacked the capacity to act independently for years.
    1997? The rot has been going on since the bloody 70's! One of the factors that led to the Falklands war was Britain's naval cuts and it's just been a continous erosion of Britain's naval ability due to the fixation on trident.

    Scrapping Arc Royal was the start and it's just snowballed ever since, now we have 2 aircraft carriers and no bloody aircraft and a small flotilla of anti-submarine frigates.

    The so-called aircraft carrier we lost under Blair was just a through-deck cruiser that carried a squadron of short range harriers, we lost out last true carrier in 1979. The new CV's will be little better as the navalised F35 isn't that much better than the Harrier in terms of range and ordnance.

  4. #124
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    16,790

    Default Re: 2019 Iran - USA War... Almost

    Quote Originally Posted by 95thrifleman View Post
    1997? The rot has been going on since the bloody 70's! One of the factors that led to the Falklands war was Britain's naval cuts and it's just been a continous erosion of Britain's naval ability due to the fixation on trident.

    Scrapping Arc Royal was the start and it's just snowballed ever since, now we have 2 aircraft carriers and no bloody aircraft and a small flotilla of anti-submarine frigates.

    The so-called aircraft carrier we lost under Blair was just a through-deck cruiser that carried a squadron of short range harriers, we lost out last true carrier in 1979. The new CV's will be little better as the navalised F35 isn't that much better than the Harrier in terms of range and ordnance.
    Looks like a bad Ideal. Also what exactly was the British government thinking at Gibraltar. The Iranian response was pretty obvious. But the UK was not in a position to deal with the fall out. If as some reports say it pushed by the US than the UK seemingly had to side with the US and quid pro quo the US would protect UK shipping. But now not joining the US did they really the Europe was going to reward Brexit with an European flotilla in the Persian Gulf? Failed to notice the hasty Spanish pull out from join deployment with US groups going to the Gulf? Looks awfully lonely.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  5. #125
    Miles
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    A Random place
    Posts
    325

    Default Re: 2019 Iran - USA War... Almost

    Quote Originally Posted by 95thrifleman View Post
    1997? The rot has been going on since the bloody 70's! One of the factors that led to the Falklands war was Britain's naval cuts and it's just been a continous erosion of Britain's naval ability due to the fixation on trident.

    Scrapping Arc Royal was the start and it's just snowballed ever since, now we have 2 aircraft carriers and no bloody aircraft and a small flotilla of anti-submarine frigates.

    The so-called aircraft carrier we lost under Blair was just a through-deck cruiser that carried a squadron of short range harriers, we lost out last true carrier in 1979. The new CV's will be little better as the navalised F35 isn't that much better than the Harrier in terms of range and ordnance.
    It probably even goes a lot further, perhaps as far back to the end of WW2 where the United Kingdom quickly lost its status as a superpower in about a decade thanks to a combination of factors such as economic difficulties, the rise of the U.S and U.S.S.R and the rapid collapse of much of its colonial empire from the 1940s-60s. Thus the largest navy in the world in 1939 became the third largest by 1970.

  6. #126
    Cookiegod's Avatar CIVUS DIVUS EX CLIBANO
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In Derc's schizophrenic mind
    Posts
    4,452

    Default Re: 2019 Iran - USA War... Almost

    Quote Originally Posted by conon394 View Post
    Looks like a bad Ideal. Also what exactly was the British government thinking at Gibraltar. The Iranian response was pretty obvious. But the UK was not in a position to deal with the fall out. If as some reports say it pushed by the US than the UK seemingly had to side with the US and quid pro quo the US would protect UK shipping. But now not joining the US did they really the Europe was going to reward Brexit with an European flotilla in the Persian Gulf? Failed to notice the hasty Spanish pull out from join deployment with US groups going to the Gulf? Looks awfully lonely.
    Answer: It didn't think much at all, other than doing Bolton's bidding, even though it hurts them massively. But the current leadership probably doesn't care either way, plus they might be interested in diverging attention away from the major dumpsterfire that was May's government, and especially Brexit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eurointelligence
    he extraordinary story behind the capture of the British-flagged oil tanker Stena Impero is a cautionary tale on many levels. It has the potential of turning into a major diplomatic calamity for both the UK and the EU.

    Simon Tisdall tells the story in the Observer that this confrontation was masterminded by none other than John Bolton, Donald Trump’s national security adviser. Several weeks ago, US intelligence services tracked an Iranian oil vessel headed for the Mediterranean, bound for a refinery in Syria. The Grace 1 sailed under a Panama flag. As it was too big for the Suez Canal, it undertook the longer journey from Iran around Cape Horn and up the Atlantic towards Spain. Washington alerted the Spanish government 48 hours before the tanker was due to enter the Strait of Gibraltar, but without giving any details that the ship might be in breach of US sanctions. The Spanish Navy escorted the ship but took no action at the time. Spain later said it would have intervened if it had been given information that the ship was in breach of US sanctions.

    Bolton instead tipped off the British, who felt compelled to intercept the Grace I as it entered the Strait of Gibraltar on July 4, dispatching a force of 30 marines who stormed the ship.

    The US managed to accomplish three things at the same time: escalating the conflict with Iran; dividing the Europeans by pitching the UK against Spain, which distanced itself from the UK manoeuvre off Gibraltar; and turning the UK once again into the useful idiot of US diplomacy. Not bad for a few days' work. But it is also a clear indication of the EU's total lack of preparedness to deal with a hostile Trump administration.

    Unsurprisingly, the EU’s response is divided. Spain is furious about the UK’s unilateral action in international waters off the Spanish coast. The EU’s external-action service, soon to be headed by Josep Borrell, Spain’s foreign minister, is silent. Germany and France are backing the UK - at least diplomatically - for now. Russia, Japan and China are with Iran. They do not want to risk oil supplies.
    Source: eurointelligence.com - But it's sadly behind a paywall.

    In other words: Not only did the US deliberately drag the UK into that conflict, it decided to drag Spain in to simply piss them off and humiliate the EU as well.

    Or here, in the words of the Guardian:
    Quote Originally Posted by Guardian
    Bolton’s delighted reaction suggested the seizure was a surprise. But accumulating evidence suggests the opposite is true, and that Bolton’s national security team was directly involved in manufacturing the Gibraltar incident. The suspicion is that Conservative politicians, distracted by picking a new prime minister, jockeying for power, and preoccupied with Brexit, stumbled into an American trap.
    In short, it seems, Britain was set up.
    [...]
    As a result, Britain has been plunged into the middle of an international crisis it is ill-prepared to deal with. The timing could hardly be worse.
    [...]
    Much of this angst could have been avoided. Britain opposed Trump’s decision to quit the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, the trigger for today’s crisis. It has watched with alarm as the Trump-Bolton policy of “maximum pressure”, involving punitive sanctions and an oil embargo, has radicalised the most moderate Iranians.
    Yet even as Britain backed EU attempts to rescue the nuclear deal, Theresa May and Jeremy Hunt, foreign secretary, tried to have it both ways – to keep Trump sweet.
    [...]
    Iran’s retaliation in snatching the Stena Impero has further exposed Britain’s diplomatic isolation and its military and economic vulnerability. The government has advised British ships to avoid the Strait of Hormuz, an admission it cannot protect them. But between 15 and 30 British-flagged tankers transit the strait each day. If trade is halted, the impact on energy prices may be severe.

    Hunt’s appeal for international support for Britain has so far fallen on deaf ears, France and Germany excepted. China, Japan and other countries that rely on oil from the Gulf show no sign of helping. The US plan for a multinational coalition to protect Gulf shipping has few takers. Meanwhile, Trump’s promise to back Britain has scant practical value – and carries inherent dangers.

    The Bolton gambit succeeded. Despite its misgivings, Britain has been co-opted on to the front line of Washington’s confrontation with Iran. The process of polarisation, on both sides, is accelerating. The nuclear deal is closer to total collapse. And by threatening Iran with “serious consequences”, without knowing what that may entail, Britain blindly dances to the beat of Bolton’s war drums.
    Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...wk-john-bolton

    I don't agree with the claims in red. I think it's very bad for Britain (they have locked themselves out of a significant chunk of the global maritime oil trade), but not for the clusterf of a "government" the UK is blessed with.. You can see why by simply looking at May's recent speech at the Chatham house.
    Should we talk about what my political legacy is? How to get out of this impossible situation we got ourselves in for no good reason? Well, no, let's talk about something that's harder to blame on me: Putin!

    The fact that Britain decided to launch it's own "multinational coalition" shows the isolation of the US foreign policy. No one actually wants to play their game. Even the gulf states are freaked out. Especially the UAE (the Sauds are probably still rubbing their hands in excitement).
    But the British coalition has the exact same goal and effect. It's simply an attempt to make this politically more acceptable/digestible. However, no one is particularly sharp on joining that one either, which also shows how isolated Britain is in this situation as well.

    I will end by quoting the Financial Times (also behind a paywall) on how winning the hearts and minds of the Iranian people is working out right now:
    Quote Originally Posted by Financial Times
    “Eye for eye and hand for hand is our Islamic ideology. An American eye or a European hand are not more valuable than an Iranian eye or hand,” said Mohammad-Sadegh Javadi-Hesar, a reformist politician.
    XOXO

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    From Socrates over Jesus to me it has always been the lot of any true visionary to be rejected by the reactionary bourgeoisie
    Qualis noncives pereo! #justiceforcookie #egalitéfraternitécookié #CLM

  7. #127
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    16,790

    Default Re: 2019 Iran - USA War... Almost

    ^Word

    I was really troubled that Bolton made it into the administration and noway days I can be certain I was right to be so. With Pompeo basically a tool and the Defense department rudderless and without strong leadership, and Haspell does not seem to have much clout, add in Trump's gnat like attention span and grasp of international events. Bolton is a cleaver ruthless bureaucratic operator he now kinda of has the floor to himself. I wish I could find the link now but a few months back I was reading he has his aids making end runs around the director of National Intel and the CIA director to get intell down echelon so he can shape his own narrative to Trump.

    But the UK has no excuse for falling for a Bolton lure, no matter how distracted. The move on the Iranian Tanker had to be followed by siding openly with america because the UK was not in position to escort its own tankers. If UK leaders could not see that they are not playing chess or even connect the dots.

    IN the Brexit debate did ramifications for international relationships/geopolitics and what not ever come up much?
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  8. #128

    Default Re: 2019 Iran - USA War... Almost

    So...

    Iranian forces warned a British warship’s crew against putting their “life in danger” during the seizure of a tanker this month, in a new recording of the incident released Monday.

    The audio message was accompanied by aerial video footage of a warship thought to be the HMS Montrose, which the UK defense ministry says has now been joined in Gulf waters by another warship, the HMS Duncan...

    “British warship Foxtrot 236, this is Sepah navy patrol boat: you are required not to interfere in this issue,” an Iranian naval officer can be heard saying in the recording aired on state TV.

    An officer on board the warship responds: “This is British warship Foxtrot 236: I am in vicinity of an internationally recognized strait with a merchant vessel in my vicinity conducting transit passage.”

    The Iranian officer replies: “British warship Foxtrot 236, this is Sepah navy patrol boat: don’t put your life in danger.”

    Iranian state television also released recordings of another incident on July 10.

    “This is British warship Foxtrot 236, go ahead,” a British naval officer can be heard saying.

    His Iranian counterpart responds by saying: “British warship Foxtrot 236, this is Sepah navy warship… your tanker British Heritage under my control. You are ordered do not to interference in my operation.”
    Iran forces warned off UK warship during tanker seizure – audio

    I've been reading that the HMS Duncan has now joined the HMS Montrose in "protecting" shipping through the straight. Previously I had read that the Duncan would actually just be relieving the Montrose. After reading the above, I'm thinking why bother. Either could as easily allow British tankers to be seized while remaining in their home port, and at a considerable savings to the British tax payer.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  9. #129
    caratacus's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    3,866

    Default Re: 2019 Iran - USA War... Almost

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    So...

    Iran forces warned off UK warship during tanker seizure – audio

    I've been reading that the HMS Duncan has now joined the HMS Montrose in "protecting" shipping through the straight. Previously I had read that the Duncan would actually just be relieving the Montrose. After reading the above, I'm thinking why bother. Either could as easily allow British tankers to be seized while remaining in their home port, and at a considerable savings to the British tax payer.
    This dispute has gone on for too long already. There are sailors being held by the Iranians still, who aren't even British nationals and have nothing at all to do with this.

    The UK should release the oil tanker minus its cargo of oil, if the vessel was contavening sanctions, and the Iranians should do likewise. There is no need to continue to hold these vessels and their crews whilst relationships between the two countries deteriorates further.

  10. #130
    Cookiegod's Avatar CIVUS DIVUS EX CLIBANO
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In Derc's schizophrenic mind
    Posts
    4,452

    Default Re: 2019 Iran - USA War... Almost

    Quote Originally Posted by caratacus View Post
    This dispute has gone on for too long already. There are sailors being held by the Iranians still, who aren't even British nationals and have nothing at all to do with this.

    The UK should release the oil tanker minus its cargo of oil, if the vessel was contavening sanctions, and the Iranians should do likewise. There is no need to continue to hold these vessels and their crews whilst relationships between the two countries deteriorates further.
    The tanker was not contravening sanctions, since Iran was never a party to those. I once again refer to UNCLOS the right of passage. Which I have referred to multiple times. UK has no right to steal cargo of a ship, and neither do the Iranians. Hence, the ship and its cargo stay were they are until the matter is resolved.

    Which the UK has no interest in, especially not with the new clown in town.

    What is even more ridiculous, is that this corner stone of international law (one of the oldest) is being de facto disbanded now. The US has been forcing passage through straits since at least 1855. But they have no qualms to stop others from using that same right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    From Socrates over Jesus to me it has always been the lot of any true visionary to be rejected by the reactionary bourgeoisie
    Qualis noncives pereo! #justiceforcookie #egalitéfraternitécookié #CLM

  11. #131

    Default Re: 2019 Iran - USA War... Almost

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    The tanker was not contravening sanctions, since Iran was never a party to those. I once again refer to UNCLOS the right of passage. Which I have referred to multiple times. UK has no right to steal cargo of a ship, and neither do the Iranians. Hence, the ship and its cargo stay were they are until the matter is resolved.
    Setting aside whether or not it was wise for the Brits to take the course of action they did, Iran being a party to the sanctions is not the basis of Gibraltar's legal argument, likewise Iran is not a party to UNCLOS, and the specialist in maritime law I quoted earlier doesn't even appear to recognize your argument within the realm of consideration. By referring to "your argument" as such, I'm being somewhat charitable, since as far as I can tell it's been a mantra and an appeal to emotion. If you're just referring to your personal feelings regarding the unfairness of the political situation, don't present it as a matter of international law, as that is simply spreading misinformation.

    If the Iranians believe they have a legal case, why have they not made any effort along those lines? Why have they instead chosen to seize ships outside of their territorial waters? Taking the latter option seems to just be playing directly into the Trump administration's hand.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  12. #132
    caratacus's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    3,866

    Default Re: 2019 Iran - USA War... Almost

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    The tanker was not contravening sanctions, since Iran was never a party to those. I once again refer to UNCLOS the right of passage. Which I have referred to multiple times. UK has no right to steal cargo of a ship, and neither do the Iranians. Hence, the ship and its cargo stay were they are until the matter is resolved.

    Which the UK has no interest in, especially not with the new clown in town.

    What is even more ridiculous, is that this corner stone of international law (one of the oldest) is being de facto disbanded now. The US has been forcing passage through straits since at least 1855. But they have no qualms to stop others from using that same right.
    Have you forgotten that prior to Iran's retaliation by capturing two oil tankers (with one released) there had been attacks on two vessels using explosive devices. At the time people claimed Iran was being framed, but I think its fair to conclude who the guilty party was now. Quite why Iran should undertake such provocative attacks at a time of potential conflict is beyond me. Iran's Revolutionary Guard have demonstrated before that they don't always check with Tehran before taking actions, and it could be these earlier attacks were not approved by the Iranian government.

    This aside though, it is quite plain that the Iranian tanker was attempting to transport oil to Syria, a country that certainly doesn't need it, and avoiding a direct route through the Suez canal, something shady was definitely going on. However, it wouldn't be the first time oil smuggling has been going on, and one wonders why no fuss was made when billion of gallons of oil was smuggled out of IS controlled Syria.

    As Sumskilz says, this whole business could have been avoided if Iran had made legal representations on the holding of their tanker instead of threatening and then undertaking the capture of two others on false charges. I think the UK has made the mistake of looking weak an ineffective on this issue though, and unable to protect vessels flying the Union flag. Unfortunately we have leaders who seek constant assurance from their allies, be it the EU or the US, rather than assert British interests. This is demonstrated not only be the lack of naval protection but the extensive delay in resolving this diplomatically, which it is in the interests of both countries to do so.

  13. #133
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    16,790

    Default Re: 2019 Iran - USA War... Almost

    I think the UK has made the mistake of looking weak an ineffective on this issue though, and unable to protect vessels flying the Union flag. Unfortunately we have leaders who seek constant assurance from their allies, be it the EU or the US, rather than assert British interests. This is demonstrated not only be the lack of naval protection but the extensive delay in resolving this diplomatically, which it is in the interests of both countries to do so.
    I agree on the look ineffective. That was a mistake. Given the Iranian response or at least the response of parts of the Iranian government was predictable the UK should have avoided seizing the taker. If as seems the US was pushing the appropriate response was to let the US do the deed. After the US at least has a pile of assets in and around the Persian Gulf, unlike the UK. The problem for the UK (or the US and anyone else) is that it is simply too easy for Iran to jump out of its waters and seize ships - as long as private industry runs on their normal load unload at speed operations and move on. Nobody has enough assets to hand hold every ship. Convoys would work but than you disrupt shipping operations and the industry hates them they wouldn't do them in the face of Somali piracy and I doubt they will do it now.

    Unfortunately we have leaders who seek constant assurance from their allies, be it the EU or the US, rather than assert British interests.
    Well I think you re giving to much credit. Either the former or the latter assumes the UK government put thought into the seizure. As far as I can they did not. Presumably the EU nations would have rebuffed the UK, and The US would have been cool but insisted on siding with the the US diplomatically on Iran. The UK in fact seems to have done none of you three options think about itself or think about and pick the EU or the US.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  14. #134

    Default Re: 2019 Iran - USA War... Almost

    Iran is the enemy of Israel, so an attack will eventually come. Here´s a good interview with Mr. Pilger who I like very much.
    Last edited by Amagi; July 30, 2019 at 08:50 AM.
    I do the wrong, and first begin to brawl.
    The secret mischiefs that I set abroach

    I lay unto the grievous charge of others.


    And thus I clothe my naked villainy

    With odd old ends, stol'n out of holy writ;

    And seem a saint, when most I play the devil."

    Shakespeare´s "Richard III"

  15. #135
    caratacus's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    3,866

    Default Re: 2019 Iran - USA War... Almost

    Quote Originally Posted by conon394 View Post
    I agree on the look ineffective. That was a mistake. Given the Iranian response or at least the response of parts of the Iranian government was predictable the UK should have avoided seizing the taker. If as seems the US was pushing the appropriate response was to let the US do the deed. After the US at least has a pile of assets in and around the Persian Gulf, unlike the UK. The problem for the UK (or the US and anyone else) is that it is simply too easy for Iran to jump out of its waters and seize ships - as long as private industry runs on their normal load unload at speed operations and move on. Nobody has enough assets to hand hold every ship. Convoys would work but than you disrupt shipping operations and the industry hates them they wouldn't do them in the face of Somali piracy and I doubt they will do it now.
    It would have been possible to respond to any aggresive ation through air support, but as you kow, our expensive aircraft carriers have no aircratf!! The Royal navy's weakness has been known about for sometime and yet nothing is being done to address the issue. The UK is spending in excess of £85 billion pounds (probably £100 billion when completed) for a high speed rail link that will shave a little over one hour off the journey between London and Manchester. That would probably build at east 14 frigates.
    The country remains one of the most important countries in the world for registrating shipping vessels under the British flag. It is worth millions of pounds to the economy. And yet we don't have the capacity to protect them.
    The Decline of the Royal Navy
    https://www.maritime-executive.com/e...the-royal-navy
    Britain used to boast the most powerful navy in the world. No more. That’s a serious problem for allies like the United States. Traditionally, Britain’s Royal Navy has been the U.S. Navy's closest partner. The two have fought together against most every foe. So any weakening of the Royal Navy also erodes Washington's naval power. Today, however, the Royal Navy is a shadow of its former self. Government budgeteers have repeatedly, and excessively, cut the numbers of its ships, planes and manpower. It can barely patrol the United Kingdom’s own waters, much less project British influence abroad.

    Quote Originally Posted by conon394 View Post
    Well I think you re giving to much credit. Either the former or the latter assumes the UK government put thought into the seizure. As far as I can they did not. Presumably the EU nations would have rebuffed the UK, and The US would have been cool but insisted on siding with the the US diplomatically on Iran. The UK in fact seems to have done none of you three options think about itself or think about and pick the EU or the US.
    According to the Spanish government, the detention of the Grace 1 oil tanker was at the request of Washington. The Spanish (our EU allies) were very quick to distance themselves from the operation publically and I note Berlin and Paris have been far from supportive. Yet, the UK gvernment has seen close cooperation with Europe not only desirable but essential for military operations. The scaling down of the fleet itself had this in mind. This has resulted in a situation in which the UK has been left in a difficult sitauation, caught between allies with a British registered tanker held illegally by the Iranians and uncertain what to do, or at least that is how it appears.
    The day that Trump ignored Spain in mission to stop an Iranian oil tanker
    The US partnered with London, not Madrid, to stop a vessel bound for Syria in breach of EU sanctions that passed near Gibraltar in disputed territorial waters
    https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/07/16...01_077325.html
    The Grace 1, which flies a Panamanian flag, had been under surveillance by US satellites since April, when it was anchored off the coast of Iran. The supertanker, which is 330 meters long and was full to the brim with crude oil, was too big for the Suez Canal, and so it sailed around the Cape of Good Hope before heading for the Mediterranean. According to the US intelligence services, it was headed for the Syrian oil refinery of Banyas. Washington advised Madrid of the arrival of the supertanker 48 hours ahead of time, and the Spanish Navy followed its passage through the Strait of Gibraltar. It was expected to cross via international waters, as many Iranian vessels do without being stopped.

    Surprisingly, on the night of July 3, it entered into waters that London classes as British Gibraltar Territorial Waters (BGTW), and dropped anchor just two miles off the Gibraltarian coast in order to resupply.
    That was the moment that the Gibraltar police, supported by 30 British marines, took advantage of to board the tanker. A Spanish Civil Guard patrol boat headed toward the vessel, but the Royal Navy cut off its path.

  16. #136
    Cookiegod's Avatar CIVUS DIVUS EX CLIBANO
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In Derc's schizophrenic mind
    Posts
    4,452

    Default Re: 2019 Iran - USA War... Almost

    Quote Originally Posted by caratacus View Post
    Have you forgotten that prior to Iran's retaliation by capturing two oil tankers (with one released) there had been attacks on two vessels using explosive devices. At the time people claimed Iran was being framed, but I think its fair to conclude who the guilty party was now. Quite why Iran should undertake such provocative attacks at a time of potential conflict is beyond me. Iran's Revolutionary Guard have demonstrated before that they don't always check with Tehran before taking actions, and it could be these earlier attacks were not approved by the Iranian government.

    This aside though, it is quite plain that the Iranian tanker was attempting to transport oil to Syria, a country that certainly doesn't need it, and avoiding a direct route through the Suez canal, something shady was definitely going on. However, it wouldn't be the first time oil smuggling has been going on, and one wonders why no fuss was made when billion of gallons of oil was smuggled out of IS controlled Syria.

    As Sumskilz says, this whole business could have been avoided if Iran had made legal representations on the holding of their tanker instead of threatening and then undertaking the capture of two others on false charges. I think the UK has made the mistake of looking weak an ineffective on this issue though, and unable to protect vessels flying the Union flag. Unfortunately we have leaders who seek constant assurance from their allies, be it the EU or the US, rather than assert British interests. This is demonstrated not only be the lack of naval protection but the extensive delay in resolving this diplomatically, which it is in the interests of both countries to do so.
    You don't seem to understand the right of passage. So I'll say it again: It doesn't matter whatsoever what sanctions the UK have on Syria, when the ship isn't related to the UK at all and merely passing through the straits.

    That's the very point of the right of passage.

    That's like arguing the right of freedom of speech applies ... but not if you don't agree with it. That's not how rights work.
    UK law does not top this international framework.

    But again: IF that's the hill you decided to settle on, then it follows that Iran has all the rights to simply sanction all maritime trade with United Kingdom. Any ships en route to the UK, any ship owned or operated by the United Kingdom automatically becomes fair game for the Iranian navy. You have to either agree with that or admit your own hypocricy.
    Quote Originally Posted by caratacus View Post
    It would have been possible to respond to any aggresive ation through air support, but as you kow, our expensive aircraft carriers have no aircratf!! The Royal navy's weakness has been known about for sometime and yet nothing is being done to address the issue. The UK is spending in excess of £85 billion pounds (probably £100 billion when completed) for a high speed rail link that will shave a little over one hour off the journey between London and Manchester. That would probably build at east 14 frigates.
    The country remains one of the most important countries in the world for registrating shipping vessels under the British flag. It is worth millions of pounds to the economy. And yet we don't have the capacity to protect them.

    According to the Spanish government, the detention of the Grace 1 oil tanker was at the request of Washington. The Spanish (our EU allies) were very quick to distance themselves from the operation publically and I note Berlin and Paris have been far from supportive. Yet, the UK gvernment has seen close cooperation with Europe not only desirable but essential for military operations. The scaling down of the fleet itself had this in mind. This has resulted in a situation in which the UK has been left in a difficult sitauation, caught between allies with a British registered tanker held illegally by the Iranians and uncertain what to do, or at least that is how it appears.
    Either a) both seizures were illegal or neither of them. You have to choose or admit your double standards. No use of force in their territorial airspace/land/waters can count a defensive action. What you favour is obviously an invasion. What's even more ridiculous is the fact that this is not winnable through military means. In the improbable case that the US & their satrapies were to sink the entire Iranian navy, Iran would still be able to sink all shipping with landbased systems. Those cannot be suppressed without a large scale ground invasion. So congratulations, your jingoism has absolutely 0 possible positive effects.

    But since the more parties involved, the merrier, these news are also making the rounds:
    Iranian Navy Commander Rear Admiral Hossein Khanzadi says Iran and Russia have agreed to conduct joint naval drills in the Persian Gulf region “in the near future.”

    Khanzadi, who was attending the Russian Navy Day celebrations in Saint Petersburg, Russia, made the announcement in an interview with the Islamic Republic News Agency on Monday, saying the two sides have reached an agreement on holding the drills in the Indian Ocean, Makran waters, Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf by the end of year.

    [...]

    The Iranian Navy chief further noted that the agreement was the first of its kind between Tehran and Moscow and aimed to boost military cooperation between the two countries particularly with regard to naval forces.

    https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2019/...t-naval-drills

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    From Socrates over Jesus to me it has always been the lot of any true visionary to be rejected by the reactionary bourgeoisie
    Qualis noncives pereo! #justiceforcookie #egalitéfraternitécookié #CLM

  17. #137

    Default Re: 2019 Iran - USA War... Almost

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    You don't seem to understand the right of passage. So I'll say it again: It doesn't matter whatsoever what sanctions the UK have on Syria, when the ship isn't related to the UK at all and merely passing through the straits.
    That is not correct:

    The next question that arises is on what basis it can be said that the EU sanctions would have been breached where there was no obvious EU connection in terms of the vessel’s owners or flag state? The answer to that can be found in the EU Syrian sanctions which, like most EU restrictive measures, sets out their scope.

    The EU Syrian sanctions apply: [6]
    (a) within the territory of the Union, including its airspace;
    (b) on board any aircraft or vessel under the jurisdiction of a Member State;
    (c) to any natural person inside or outside the territory of the Union who is a national of a Member State;
    (d) to any legal person, entity or body, inside or outside the territory of the Union, which is incorporated or constituted under the law of a Member State;
    (e) to any legal person, entity or body in respect of any business done in whole or in part within the Union.

    While the precise background to the detention has not been explained by the Government of Gibraltar, subsection (e) is very broad. It applies to ‘any person, entity or body’. There is no requirement here that it must be an EU person or entity. It applies ‘in respect of any business’, again this is very wide – shipment of goods is no doubt a type of business that is covered. Finally, it applies where that business is ‘done in whole or in part within the Union’ and as such, a shipment carrying goods to a designated entity would only have to pass through EU waters to be caught. Against this background, Grace 1 loaded with cargo on her way to a designated refinery in Syria would fall within EU sanctions jurisdiction once she entered EU waters.
    In order to claim this is not the case with any credibility, you would have to present a treaty Iran is a party to which exempts them from being subject to British and EU law while being within British territorial waters. Although, that probably wouldn't hold up considering the ship was unflagged at the time it was seized.

    Likewise, even if Iran were a party to UNCLOS, Article 19 wouldn't necessarily protect them, since Article 21 allows the UK to enforce its own customs laws on ships claiming innocent passage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    That's the very point of the right of passage.

    That's like arguing the right of freedom of speech applies ... but not if you don't agree with it. That's not how rights work.
    That's a better comparison, since for example, a foreigner in the UK is not exempt from the UK's hate speech laws.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    Either a) both seizures were illegal or neither of them.
    It isn't a double standard to say that the UK has jurisdiction within its own territorial waters, whereas Iran doesn't have jurisdiction outside of its own territorial waters. In fact, it is quite consistent.
    Last edited by sumskilz; July 31, 2019 at 10:53 AM. Reason: removed unnecessary rhetorical question
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  18. #138
    Cookiegod's Avatar CIVUS DIVUS EX CLIBANO
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In Derc's schizophrenic mind
    Posts
    4,452

    Default Re: 2019 Iran - USA War... Almost

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz
    (b) on board any aircraft or vessel under the jurisdiction of a Member State
    Britain is a member of the UNCLOS, as is the EU. Both are obligated by the treaty to adhere to it.

    There was no declaration by any party to the sanctions prior to this incident that those were superceding the UNCLOS, nor was that intended.

    No other EU member state is happy about the stunt pulled by the UK. It is very clear that the sanctions weren't meant to breach UNCLOS.
    The Brits are merely using it as a flimsy excuse.

    Furthermore, it's not article 19 that applies here. Your counter with 21 is thus false.




    The relevant passages are articles 38 and 42. Members of UNCLOS are not allowed to regulate transit passage in any way other than what's specified in 42.1. - The EU sanctions don't fit that list.
    "Such laws and regulations shall not discriminate in form or in fact among foreign ships or in their application have the practical effect of denying, hampering or impairing the right of transit passage as defined in this section." - Not only is your reference to Iran only being a signatory completely irrelevant, it's completely contradicted here.
    42.2 also effectively means any application of EU laws to straights is illegal.

    The member states are required to give "due publicity to all such laws and regulations" according to 42.3 - The seizure came as a surprise to everyone except UK & US. Therefore this was not adhered to.

    In short: None of your legal justification attempts work out.

    It gets even weirder if you were to look at a map for once and check the international shipping lanes in the Persian gulf.

    Yeah. Brits, or anyone else for that matter would have a hard time getting around Iranian territorial waters.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    From Socrates over Jesus to me it has always been the lot of any true visionary to be rejected by the reactionary bourgeoisie
    Qualis noncives pereo! #justiceforcookie #egalitéfraternitécookié #CLM

  19. #139

    Default Re: 2019 Iran - USA War... Almost

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    The relevant passages are articles 38 and 42.

    Members of UNCLOS are not allowed to regulate transit passage in any way other than what's specified in 42.1. - The EU sanctions don't fit that list.
    "Such laws and regulations shall not discriminate in form or in fact among foreign ships or in their application have the practical effect of denying, hampering or impairing the right of transit passage as defined in this section." - Not only is your reference to Iran only being a signatory completely irrelevant, it's completely contradicted here.
    42.2 also effectively means any application of EU laws to straights is illegal.

    The member states are required to give "due publicity to all such laws and regulations" according to 42.3 - The seizure came as a surprise to everyone except UK & US. Therefore this was not adhered to.

    In short: None of your legal justification attempts work out.
    They aren't my justifications, they are what every expert I could find on the subject are saying. Initially I objected to your claim that there was no legal argument, which is clearly not the case. I had looked at Article 38, but I believe the following is the reason it is not being brought up:

    The Grace1 was not in the straight when it was seized, since it was east of Europa Point at the time.

    From Article 38:

    Transit passage means the exercise in accordance with this Part of the freedom of navigation and overflight solely for the purpose of continuous and expeditious transit of the strait between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone.
    From Article 39:

    Ships and aircraft, while exercising the right of transit passage, shall:
    (a) proceed without delay through or over the strait
    As I under stand it, Grace1 went from Spanish territorial waters to British territorial waters unimpeded through the straight and was then in British territorial waters anchored and taking on board supplies making Article 19 rather than Article 38 relevant.

    They really didn't have to enter British waters at all:



    Another issue is that you're assuming that an Iranian or unflagged ship can enjoy all the protections without any of the obligations. That does seem to be customary law, at least to some degree, but I'm not certain how that works in the case of a dispute. What would be the incentive for Iran ever bothering to ratify it?

    Nevertheless, it would make sense that Iran would at least try to argue along the lines you have, but they have not chosen to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    It gets even weirder if you were to look at a map for once and check the international shipping lanes in the Persian gulf.
    It doesn't change the fact that what Iran did do, was seize ships in Omani waters.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  20. #140
    Cookiegod's Avatar CIVUS DIVUS EX CLIBANO
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In Derc's schizophrenic mind
    Posts
    4,452

    Default Re: 2019 Iran - USA War... Almost

    First of all, this isn't how straights work. It's not just the narrowest part in the narrow, but as defined in article 36 as shown above.

    The map you show here is one of many interpretations of the Gibraltar territorial waters, as unilaterally declared by the United Kingdom. The vesselfinder.com link you posted shows the more common one - Gibraltar's 3 mile radius automatically becomes surrounded by the Spanish 12 mile zone. And even further still, British suzerainty over the waters aren't recognised by Spain.

    The fact of the matter is, the waters around Gibraltar are part of a straight, as defined by article 36 in the UNCLOS.

    Secondly: You say the vessel could have avoided British waters. That presumes the ship had any warning of the seizure that was going to take place. It didn't. And again: No one formulating the sanctions regime intended it to be in conflict with the UNCLOS. The UK, as the US' faithful lapdog, knowingly went against the spirit of the deals. And if you're playing technicalities instead of what's morality, then once again: It's not British waters then, is it?

    It doesn't change the fact that what Iran did do, was seize ships in Omani waters.
    Maybe in Omani waters - given that the ship turned south and tried to run - but definitely not British waters.

    Given that the Brits were the ones acting first and the Steno Impero thus unlike the Grace 1 had a warning, I can't sympathise or care about it. The Brits knew that response would come, and did it anyway.

    At the end of the day, this conflict is easily resolvable, and hurts Britain far more than Iran. But the cleptocratic regime in London won't do any of that.

    Another issue is that you're assuming that an Iranian or unflagged ship can enjoy all the protections without any of the obligations. That does seem to be customary law, at least to some degree, but I'm not certain how that works in the case of a dispute. What would be the incentive for Iran ever bothering to ratify it?
    That's not how international laws, and especially UNCLOS, work. UNCLOS is the formalisation of the customary laws of the sea that existed for centuries. Countries, such as the US and Iran don't have to be signatories of the treaty and aren't for various reasons - but they still uphold the majority/entirety of it.

    The logic is the same as with the treatment of Soviet POW's by the Nazis - The Nazis referred to Stalin not having signed the conventions, but that didn't absolve them at the Nürnberg trials.

    UNCLOS, however, is very clear and doesn't distinguish between ships owned/operated by member and nonmember states. Your reference to Iran not having ratified the treaty (but still signed it iirc) thus goes nowhere. If anything, the UK & EU are obligated to operate under these rules and Iran isn't (though again: Customary laws apply).

    There is only one scenario, in which the British actions would be legitimate - and that'd be a state of war against Iran or Syria.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    From Socrates over Jesus to me it has always been the lot of any true visionary to be rejected by the reactionary bourgeoisie
    Qualis noncives pereo! #justiceforcookie #egalitéfraternitécookié #CLM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •