US officials: Iranian boats attempted to seize British tanker

Typhon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,084
True. But it's the US officials talking to the media about this. Why do you think this is?
Because US officials were awake and UK officials weren't? I got no particular love for the US government at the moment but not everything is a conspiracy. Are we also going to ignore the fact that the Iranian president mocked the UK for shadowing their frighters? This was a dick waving move by the Iranians, nothing more.
 

anamika

Member
May 18, 2018
451
Because US officials were awake and UK officials weren't? I got no particular love for the US government at the moment but not everything is a conspiracy. Are we also going to ignore the fact that the Iranian president mocked the UK for shadowing their frighters? This was a dick waving move by the Iranians, nothing more.
So BBC reporters are getting this information from US officials because all the UK officials are asleep except when they woke up to confirm to these reporters, when asked, that yes, what the Americans are telling them is correct? Ok then.
 

Horp

Member
Nov 16, 2017
1,442
So pretty much the Iranians were like - 'Yo, come this way please'
The British were like - 'No. Look at these big guns we have'.
The Iranians were like - 'Ok.'

Headlines - IRANIANS ATTEMPT TO SEIZE BRITISH BOATS!!!!
What a strange post. Like, I don’t know the specifics of this situation, there might be more to this story, but if you described happened, the headline is accurate, no?
Like, if some one shows up and tries to rob me, and I show then I’m armed, and then they back away - that is attempted robbery, you know that right?
 

thepotatoman

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,644
Denver
What a strange post. Like, I don’t know the specifics of this situation, there might be more to this story, but if you described happened, the headline is accurate, no?
Like, if some one shows up and tries to rob me, and I show then I’m armed, and then they back away - that is attempted robbery, you know that right?
Is there anything to suggest that the intentions of the Iranians was to commandeer the boat?
 

Geoff

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,922
It should be noted that shortly after this event the Iranian foreign minister made a bizarre statement mocking the British, basically calling them pussies for sending escorts with their tankers, despite threatening British interests previously and seemingly attempting to seize the tanker in question.

People need to be more nuanced in how they think about this situation. Just because Trump is fucking Iran unfairly, doesn't necessarily exonerate Iran for all her actions.
 

Horp

Member
Nov 16, 2017
1,442
Is there anything to suggest that the intentions of the Iranians was to commandeer the boat?
They wanted them to do what they wanted them to do. Going by the article, what they did was not according to international law. What I was refering to in my post, however, was just the quoted post and how that post characterized the interaction - and how the headline in that post related to the post itself.
 

Anomander

Member
Oct 27, 2017
262
If Brits can play the pirates in 2019, why can't Iran? Britain's seizure of Iranian tanker has no basis in any international law.
 
British MoD confirms Iranian boats tried to impede British oil tanker

MikeHattsu

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,849
From the BBC:

All the information on this going to the media is coming from US officials. Not the British.


And we know why it's coming from the Americans.
BBC article has been updated:
Iranian boats tried to impede a British oil tanker near the Gulf - before being driven off by a Royal Navy ship, the Ministry of Defence has said.

HMS Montrose, a British frigate escorting the tanker British Heritage, was forced to move between the three boats and the tanker, a spokesman said.

A UK government spokesman said: "Contrary to international law, three Iranian vessels attempted to impede the passage of a commercial vessel, British Heritage, through the Strait of Hormuz.

"We are concerned by this action and continue to urge the Iranian authorities to de-escalate the situation in the region."
 

Typhon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,084
If Brits can play the pirates in 2019, why can't Iran? Britain's seizure of Iranian tanker has no basis in any international law.
It was a violating EU sanctions against Syria and seized in Gibraltar. Last time I checked Britain is still member of the EU and Gibraltar is British territory
 

Geoff

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,922
Other than the fact they threatened to do so earlier in the week?
You fool. It was a perfectly normal state hijacking of British ships in international waters done for reasonable reasons. Possibly the ship had a defective headlight. Who knows? The point is that the Iranian threats to take revenge on British interests a few days ago in response to the British seizure of an ostensibly Panamanian ship have nothing whatsoever to do with Iran appearing to attempt to take revenge on British interests because that's not what they were doing. It was something else.
 

Geoff

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,922
If Brits can play the pirates in 2019, why can't Iran? Britain's seizure of Iranian tanker has no basis in any international law.
I thought it was a Panamanian tanker? oh hang on what's this...?

The Panamanian authority added that Grace 1 had been de-listed after receiving an alert indicating that the ship had participated in or was linked to terrorism financing. Although the tanker flies a Panama flag, Iran claimed ownership and objected to the seizure of its ship.
Oh that's OK, It wasn't Panamanian anymore because they de-listed it due to links with terrorism. Not my words, Anomander, the words of Reuters.com https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-iran-tanker-panama/panama-says-it-cut-iran-oil-tanker-from-boat-registry-after-terrorism-alert-idUSKCN1TZ24G

How dare the British seize an Iranian vessel flying under a literal false flag on a sanction-busting mission to poor misunderstood Assad?
 

spineduke

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,735
How dare the British seize an Iranian vessel flying under a literal false flag on a sanction-busting mission to poor misunderstood Assad?
i feel we're this close to having people here call him a champion of anti-imperialism or some crap like that with some of the narrative going around here.
 

Anomander

Member
Oct 27, 2017
262
It was a violating EU sanctions against Syria and seized in Gibraltar. Last time I checked Britain is still member of the EU and Gibraltar is British territory
So there are no international waters around Gibraltar?

I thought it was a Panamanian tanker? oh hang on what's this...?



Oh that's OK, It wasn't Panamanian anymore because they de-listed it due to links with terrorism. Not my words, Anomander, the words of Reuters.com https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-iran-tanker-panama/panama-says-it-cut-iran-oil-tanker-from-boat-registry-after-terrorism-alert-idUSKCN1TZ24G

How dare the British seize an Iranian vessel flying under a literal false flag on a sanction-busting mission to poor misunderstood Assad?
lmao. Do you have any idea how tankers work? 90% of tankers on earth are listed under a third country's flag.
 

Geoff

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,922
lmao. Do you have any idea how tankers work? 90% of tankers on earth are listed under a third country's flag.
This one was flying under a third-countries flag despite being de-listed two months by that third country ago for terrorist activity.

Probably just an admin error. Totally fine to go ahead and break EU Sanctions in that case.
 

Anomander

Member
Oct 27, 2017
262
This one was flying under a third-countries flag despite being de-listed two months by that third country ago for terrorist activity.

Probably just an admin error. Totally fine to go ahead and break EU Sanctions in that case.
"Terrorist activity" is just the US putting pressure on Panama to delist the tanker. Don't be naive.

Apparently it was in port at Gibraltar. Presumably those are not international waters?
It wasn't in a port. It was boarded by the British commandos from a chopper in the middle of sea.
 

ScopehJ

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,413
Apparently it was in port at Gibraltar. Presumably those are not international waters?

edit: Apols it was not at port but "heading east through Gibraltarian waters" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/04/royal-marines-gibraltar-tanker-oil-syria-eu-sanctions
There’s a reason that The UK won’t return Gibraltar to Spain. It’s a literal choke point in to The Mediterranean. If Britain or the US wanted to they could blockade it easily

It has massive strategic and military importance
 

Psittacus

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,171
So there are no international waters around Gibraltar?
There's no way to pass through the Strait of Gibraltar without being under EU jurisdiction for a portion of the journey. If they can prove that it was taking crude oil to a sanctioned refinery then impounding the ship while in Spanish or Gibraltan waters is a valid enforcement action.
.
 

Anomander

Member
Oct 27, 2017
262
There's no way to pass through the Strait of Gibraltar without being under EU jurisdiction for a portion of the journey. If they can prove that it was taking crude oil to a sanctioned refinery then impounding the ship while in Spanish or Gibraltan waters is a valid enforcement action.
.
hmm... I doubt this is how it works, otherwise how can there be international waters in Strait of Hormuz?
 

Siggy-P

Avenger
Mar 18, 2018
4,995
So pretty much the Iranians were like - 'Yo, come this way please'
The British were like - 'No. Look at these big guns we have'.
The Iranians were like - 'Ok.'

Headlines - IRANIANS ATTEMPT TO SEIZE BRITISH BOATS!!!!
Is there anything to suggest that the intentions of the Iranians was to commandeer the boat?
Pure fabricated headline, nice. Jail whoever wrote this rag.
Yeah, I'm sure the Iranians were just hoping to play a nice game of bingo with the tanker crew. Run them a hot bath and make them sandwiches for their troubles.



...You know it's a good thing that you're all against the US government's intents to go to invade Iran but that doesn't mean that Iran is some patrent Saint that can do know wrong.

It tried to steal a Tanker and was driven off by threat of gunfire.
 

kmfdmpig

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
2,998
You think press does not have round the clock reporters to cover another country attacking British ships?

CNN uses the word 'alleged' - what does this mean? Are they not sure this happened?
The BBC covered it in a few hours just as I said they would.
Are you still of the belief that this was fabricated?
 

Ensorcell

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,191
God Iran is dumb, they are taking the bait. They are not going to be able to close the strait no matter what, as that would mean war. They know this.
 
Last edited:

Pomerlaw

Member
Feb 25, 2018
2,535
I'm just pointing it out because this thread is dominated by discussion of the US and its goals with Iran, when this situation, for a change, has nothing to do with the US.
Yes it does. You think this would have happened if Trump didn't break the Iran nuclear deal and put sanctions on them?

 

OrdinaryPrime

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
11,041
Yes it does. You think this would have happened if Trump didn't break the Iran nuclear deal and put sanctions on them?

Trump breaking the Iran nuclear deal was stupid af, but Iran doing stupid things isn't justified because of it. I know that poster was basically complaining that the thread is about the US (silly that they bring up the US if their goal is to turn the thread more towards the topic of the UK and Iran) so I understand why you said it, I just feel like it's worth stating :).
 

Pomerlaw

Member
Feb 25, 2018
2,535
Trump breaking the Iran nuclear deal was stupid af, but Iran doing stupid things isn't justified because of it. I know that poster was basically complaining that the thread is about the US (silly that they bring up the US if their goal is to turn the thread more towards the topic of the UK and Iran) so I understand why you said it, I just feel like it's worth stating :).
What I mean is shitty things happening was predictable. Trump did it out of spite for Obama, but guys like Pompeo and Bolton use it for their own goals (regime change, conflict, Israel / Saudi Arabia ass licking).

When you back a government into a corner, with their economy crumbling and their survival put in jeopardy, they will act aggressively and sometimes illogically. Wars get started like this!

Iran is begging for war
Hit the cornered animal until he bites, then pull out your gun, America.
 

OrdinaryPrime

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
11,041
What I mean is shitty things happening was predictable. Trump did it out of spite for Obama, but guys like Pompeo and Bolton use it for their own goals (regime change, conflict, Israel / Saudi Arabia ass licking).

When you back a government into a corner, with their economy crumbling and their survival put in jeopardy, they will act aggressively and sometimes illogically. Wars get started like this!
I'm not disagreeing with you exactly. I just think there is some responsibility on Iran here, regardless of the sanctions and their desperation. A different example, I don't think one could justify what North Korea has done with its nuclear program just because of their sanctions and getting desperate themselves. I know the situations are not the same by any means as I don't have the enmity towards Iran that I do towards North Korea.

I don't think I've read many posts on this board that would defend Trump's actions to pull out of that deal. The players seemed to be on a path of communication and collaboration and it was destroyed for political reasons. Which is myopic and gross.
 

DrewFu

Member
Apr 19, 2018
4,713
Iran is begging for war
Iran has been playing a dangerous, stupid game, but they do not want war with the West. They're basically playing from the North Korean playbook of knowing the US/NATO isn't going to invade, so they're being a dangerous pain in the ass until the US gives it what it wants. In this case, a return to the deal and the sanctions dropped.
 

Psittacus

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,171
hmm... I doubt this is how it works, otherwise how can there be international waters in Strait of Hormuz?
The Strait of Gibraltar is narrower at 7.7 nautical miles wide compared to the Strait of Hormuz which is 21 nautical miles wide at the narrowest.
21 is still less than 24, which is the minimum width for true international waters to form between the halves of a strait. So there may be an aspect of international shipping law I'm misunderstanding here
 
Last edited:

MikeHattsu

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,849
21 is still less than 24, which is the minimum width for true international waters to form between the halves of a strait. So there may be an aspect of international shipping law I'm misunderstanding here.
It's wider than the minimum in parts (between the thicker white lines where the red line doesn't touch):
 
Last edited: