This is in response to the British military seizing one of their oil tankers - which Iran of course claims was not violating EU sanctions. That is their reasoning.
And this particular situation has nothing to do with the US.
Last edited:
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
US officials: Iranian boats attempted to seize British tanker
- Thread starter poklane
- Start date
And this particular situation has nothing to do with the US.
Just because they failed doesn't mean that what they attempted was OK or was anything other than an attempt to seize a boat.
It's OK to both dislike the US's foreign policy and also recognize that the people running the IGRC are escalating things and acting foolishly.
This. Many seem to not understand that calling our Iran's actions is not inherently supporting of Trump or what anyone else is doing against them.
Last edited:
This seems so naive.
The US' foreign policy is to get Iran to escalate and act foolishly. This is a feature, not a bug.
It is puzzling. I hate Trump as well and think every day he's in office is a blight on the US. With that said it's funny to see people twist logic to be in favor of Iran, which is run by brutal and oppressive fools who punish people with 70+ lashes for playing a certain kind of music. As you say, it's not a zero-sum game in which being against the US means being in favor of Iran. Both countries are run by monsters.
I think that's a simplistic take on things. Do you believe this is a false flag? If not, then Iran is escalating things through their actions. You can say that's playing into the US's hands, but no one forced them to send their stupid overrated speedboats out to try to capture a UK ship.
What? Yes? Trump has obviously been baiting Iran since he pulled out of the JCPOA for nothing. We've known for years what Trump thinks a conflict with Iran will do for a President:
Whether that is true or not has nothing to do with this situation. This is entirely between the UK and Iran. The US has nothing to do with this particular situation.
I get that. I'm not defending Trump or saying he was right to pull out of JCPOA. I'm saying that Iran's actions are also misguided, dumb and escalations. It's not a zero-sum game in which one side is right because the other is wrong. The US was wrong and made things worse. Iran is currently making things worse. Those are not contradictions.
I really have to disagree. I do recognize that amid existing political tensions that the Western media will act to portray the Iranian regime as negatively as possible. That being said, I find your portrayal to be downplaying the events based on what we know.
It's not "The Iranians asked a tanker to come to their port, the British refused, and the Iranians were ok with this." based on what we know. From the article, five armed Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (Iranian military) boats attempted to force a civilian vessel in international waters into their territorial waters, and the only reason that didn't happen is because of the threat of force from a nearby British warship. Mind you this is after reports that Iran had directly announced the intention to retaliate for the the seizure of one of their ships for sanctions violations.
I think we can be respectfully skeptical of the media, but there's literally no basis to not call that an illegal attempted seizure unless we start getting into tinfoil hat "it didn't actually happen" theories. I do appreciate your civil discourse and thoughts on this matter however.
Is this 'attempt' really worthy of this headline? It's only there to rile up Americans.
I notice how no one calls the British 'irresponsible and escalating things' when they seized the Iranian tankers.
Trump decides one fine day to unilaterally levy sanctions on the Iranians because his son-in-law Kushners best buds - the Israelis and Saudis - wanted him to do it. So he sanctions Iran from selling oil - their main source of money - and aims to destroy their economy.
British tankers then stop, board and seize an Iranian tanker on the way to Syria because sanctions now don't allow for this sale of Iranian oil.
The Iranians, then in retaliation, ask a British tanker to step into their port. The British refuse and carry on.
This is then headlines news on CNN and we get many fine folks in here shaking their heads at the 'irresponsible Iranians' and chiding them for 'escalating things'.
Typical colonial, imperialist behavior. The US stomps on these countries with their mighty boots and these countries are not even allowed a show of resistance - that's just irresponsible we are told. Just bend over and take it. It will all be over soon.
In which case it was not really a threat is it? Iran had promised retaliation. The British were prepared. The armed Iranians asked the British to enter Iranian waters. The British warship refused. It was an expected retaliation that was defused.
People here are rather ignoring that this is the media drum beating for war. Portraying Iran as being unreasonably aggressive.
Last edited:
Im pretty sure its been all the same to the middle east since Iraq.
Nobody has said that Iran is right here. That still doesn't mean that this type of escalation hasn't been a goal of this administration.
You poke the bear in the cage enough times then eventually it will lose its shit and start swiping at you. Once you get scratched, nobody will balk at you for putting it down and putting a new bear in that cage.
The UK seizure of the Iranian ship was, rightfully, a major story. The seizure was, according to the UK, based on the oil being brought to Syria, which would make it a violation of EU Sanctions on Syria. Iran says it was seized due to the US manipulating the UK to do their bidding.
This attempt, which was a real attempt and therefore shouldn't be in quotes, is indeed worthy of headlines. It's not just a story for Americans. It's being covered in British media as well. It's a real story. It's not some manufactured nonsense as you seem to believe it to be.
What the hell else do you think they were going to do once the boat entered their territorial waters?
So all of the blame for whatever they might do goes to the US in your mind?
Iran is not a captive bear in a cage...
My issue is with the reporting.
I mean, the implication of the clickbait title is clear, right?
But if you want to be that pedant than fine - I see even less reason for Iran to pick a fight with the UK.
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.
There is nothing clickbait about it... US officials are stating that Iran attempted to seize a British tanker. That's the headline. It's not like the title was something sensational and a huge stretch of the truth like, "Iran Attacks British Boat on International Waters."
I honestly think it's unhealthy to think of such incidents in terms of blame.
Historically, whenever you get unfriendly navies next to each other you always always always get such incidents, and while the local reasons differ, it's almost never some sort of sinister plot. You nearly had WW3 in the cuban missile crisis over such shit and 100% no one wanted that. I can't know for sure in this case, but I really really can't imagine why Iran will want to pick that fight.
This is why it's super important to have responsible reporting, the US already went to at least 2 wars over bullshit stories about what happen to its boats.
I literally just explained what Iran's reasoning is. They threatened retaliation agianst the UK for seizing one of their boats - and here we are.
And I'm not being pedant. Pointing out that this is between the UK and Iran is the crux of the story.
I think most people who would read the title would imagine something way worse and quite different, I know I did.
And as I said, I think such phrasing can end up being really problematic, historically, that's exactly how the US justified every one of its shitty wars.
Why is it important to you that we use that language by the way?
I really don't see the benefits, assuming our goals is to avoid conflict with Iran. If we do, then we should probably talk on that.
I mean what they're trying to achieve. I don't believe Iran has a history of acting so blatantly against its interests, but again, I don't know.
You seem pretty damn sure though.
Why would the British media not cover it as well? Those are British tankers involved. It's not like the Brits have their hands clean when it comes to war in the middle east. Bush was able to wage war in Iraq only because of war criminal Blair's support.
Look, ultimately it comes down to Western countries applying sanction on countries they don't like and squeezing their economies dry until they are destroyed. When these countries then respond in this way, it's turned into headlines like this.
And by the way, has the British tanker and the royal navy mentioned anything about this and what happened? All this is from the Americans. Why are not the British saying anything since it's their ships?
Even CNN is framing it this way:
1. Why is this 'alleged' if they are all so sure this happened?
2. Why is this a news article if they are not even fully sure this has happened and it's only 'alleged'?
So while the British tanker and navy themselves have not made this an issue, the Americans are trying to make it one to get their war. Typical.
Last edited:
Attempting to force boats in international shipping waters to your nations waters is literally attempting to seize said boats
Give it a few hours. Once the UK reporters wake up (it's 3AM there right now) and get to it they'll cover it more in their press with more information from the MOD, etc...
Unless you think it was fabricated then why do you continue to write "alleged" in quotes? Do you think it didn't happen?
British media is covering it. I'm sure more will when it's not the middle of the night.
This crap happens all the time there, and I think the issue is that the reporting implies some new important development, when I don't think that there is any sign that this is.
People keep arguing that it's technically true, but like, if someone shove you it's technically true that they physically assaulted you, but if you write the title like that, people would get a wrong picture probably.
They aren't picking a fight per-se, they are doing a North Korea impression. Basically if you claim to have nukes and act like an asshole you can use that to try to get people to take you seriously in world negotiations and it's also great for redirecting the hate of your population from the corrupt leadership to foreign people. Pretty much all authoritarian regimes do this, including the Trump administration.
Simply, it does not happen all the time.
It almost never happens. Never.
They should've put a couple buoys with detour signs on them
Uhhh, I'm gonna need some sources that direct confrontations where Iran attempts to seize shipping vessels in international waters is "happening all the time"
And this is clearly on the top of Iran likely being responsible for planting limpet mines on ships during the last few months as well. These aren't isolated incidents, and it's directly related to Iran's government or a faction of it's revolutionary guard stirring up shit as some attempt to call Trump's bluffs and/or force the West's hand in negotiations to end the crippling sanctions.
The Daily express is your idea of 'British Media'? How come the BBC is not covering something as important as IRANIAN BOATS ATTEMPT TO SEIZE BRITISH TANKER!!! Even if it is the middle of the night. CNN has done it.
I also like this title from the express:
Iran humiliated as 'five ships FAIL to seize British oil tanker in Persian Gulf standoff'
Because of course, it's all about the humiliation right. How far can we push and humiliate this country until it breaks.
And of course way down in the CNN article, they say all this is 'alleged'. That's not in the title naturally.
Last edited:
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?
"alleged" is used any time there are conflicting reports (IE: Iran saying they didn't do anything wrong) and one side is accusing the other of something.
No one said that the speed boats fired on the UK ship. It wasn't attacked. It was threatened prior to a British warship scaring off the speed boats.
I'm not saying this is the biggest story in the world. I think it's a story that is worth covering, but I don't think it's one that necessitates significant coverage at 3AM with quotes from the UK ship. I suspect that such stories will be forthcoming in the next 24 hours.
I find it incredibly unlikely that US officials are going to say there was an incident between the British navy and Iran if it didn't happen, when the UK could easily debunk it. That isn't something that can't easily be made up.
Didn't Iraq get invaded in 2003? Or are we in a different timeline
I follow Israeli news and it seems like every other week there's a news story about some incident there, usually with baited breath by Israeli hawks that America will go and wreck another regional foe.
But you know what, that's a general impression I get, I could be wrong, could be just a bunch of Israeli war hawks talking smack. I feel like debating the point in detail gonna be tedious as fuck, but we can wait a week to see if this developed toward anything. I will be here if you promise to.
Can I ask you a question though, you don't have to answer but I wonder, do you support some more aggressive action against Iran?
The reason that I'm asking because if that's the case, I may have an issue with you on strategy, but not on tactic. If I wanted that I would try to use such language to and that's fine, the only thing I'm saying is that if you don't then it really doesn't make any sense to me.
If they wanted to capture a tanker I'm pretty sure they could.
I donno, I could be wrong, but this to me reads like the regular friction that you have when unfriendly ships wanders around each other.
Though again, if this is the start of some Iranian plan, I will be proven a fool in short order.
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.
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.
The BBC link says that it was confirmed by UK officials.
Also:
"And on Wednesday Iranian President Hassan Rouhani mocked the UK, calling it "scared" and "hopeless" for using Royal Navy warships to shadow a British tanker in the Gulf.
HMS Montrose had shadowed British tanker the Pacific Voyager for some of the way through the Strait of Hormuz, but that journey passed without incident."