1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Next time the USA or Israel want an Iranian tanker seized..

Discussion in 'Personal' started by MAGAorMIGA, Jul 20, 2019.

  1. MAGAorMIGA

    MAGAorMIGA Star commenter

    ….they can do it themselves! Look at the bind we're in now, and I feel for that poor tanker crew seized in the Strait of Hormuz.
    What this episode has done is to highlight the effects of the Tory cuts to our military and naval power. Our impotence has been exposed. We are no longer capable of carrying out the most basic of military adventures from long-range without American, Saudi or Israeli assistance. The problem is that Trump has always expressed his distaste for military adventurism in the Middle East. He may have hawkish advisers like Bolton and Pompeo but is unlikely to commit to war, particularly on our behalf if there's no obvious benefit for America itself.
     
    hplovegame48 likes this.
  2. florian gassmann

    florian gassmann Star commenter

    Gibraltar is still maintaining that nobody asked it to seize the Grace 1. It did so because it was bound for Syria, thus breaking EU sanctions against Iran.

    What I don't understand is why the tanker can't be escorted back to the place from which it came, to ensure that it doesn't go to Syria. But instead, the Supreme Court of Gibraltar has just ordered that it remains impounded for another month. Doesn't seem helpful.
     
  3. MAGAorMIGA

    MAGAorMIGA Star commenter

    We all know the diplomatic niceties around "plausible deniability" but the fact is that it was widely reported that the Marines on Gib were asked to seize the tanker by CIA/Mossad.
     
  4. florian gassmann

    florian gassmann Star commenter

    But no evidence; no proof. Gibraltar claims that it was enforcing the sanction the EU has had in place for nearly a decade that restricts oil sales to Syria.

    Iran needs an ambassador to leak some emails in support of their claim.
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2019
  5. artboyusa

    artboyusa Lead commenter

    "Widely reported" where?
     
    LondonCanary likes this.
  6. artboyusa

    artboyusa Lead commenter

    I suppose that, having been seized, the ship and its cargo are now subject to maritime law and under some form of adjudication process.
     
  7. racroesus

    racroesus Star commenter

    It allows Donald to refer to how weak we are and ask if maybe we should spend more money for NATO.
     
  8. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    Grrrr Israel.... grrrr....
     
    artboyusa likes this.
  9. Wilmthrop

    Wilmthrop New commenter

    As previous posters have said, it's high time we invest in our naval forces. Aircraft carriers and Ballistic Missile submarines look impressive, but unfortunately they are not capable of carrying out the nitty gritty tasks such as protecting shipping in constricted international waterways such as the Persian Gulf. I hope that the Type 31 Frigate becomes a relatively affordable model which can be built in sufficient numbers. Politicians seem to forget that as an island nation, 95% of UK trade is carried by sea. It only seems prudent to have naval forces capable of protecting it.
     
    MAGAorMIGA and les25paul like this.
  10. burajda

    burajda Star commenter

    Mossad........Israel..........Zionists........... causing all this trouble........nothing at all to do with all the power struggles going on in Iran as the factions circle round waiting for the geriatric supreme leader to die.
     
    artboyusa and nomad like this.
  11. Oscillatingass

    Oscillatingass Star commenter

    How many warships (regardless of flag) would be required to guarantee the safe passage of international shipping through the straights of Hormuz?
     
  12. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    Guy on the BBC this morning said the tanker was in breach of EU guidance on Iran exporting oil.

    But easier to blame the Israelis than to blame Brussels. Or even praise the UK for enforcing EU sanctions against a state that is the biggest sponsor of terrorism, fuels the war in Yemen, has troops in Iraq and Syria, engages in piracy against commercial shipping, takes hostages from other countries.
    upload_2019-7-20_12-21-19.png

    No, far better to prattle on about the Jews... oh sorry, the Israelis...
     
    artboyusa and xmal like this.
  13. florian gassmann

    florian gassmann Star commenter

    Quite a few. A report from 2011 stated that an average of 14 tankers per day passed through the Strait - and that's just oil tankers; I dare say other cargoes take the same route.
     
  14. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    Guy on the radio speculated 6-7 UK warships, working with a coalition of the willing, would be needed to safely convoy shipping through the straits of Hormuz.
     
  15. Oscillatingass

    Oscillatingass Star commenter

    Thanks for the reply. Six to seven warships is just about the entire RN these days isn't it (not counting submarines and aircraft carriers)? I think we might struggle to get a coalition of willing apart from the US since I gather other European nations don't want to get involved and be seen to be taking the side of Trump. Doesn't look good. I must say I thought that these days with satellite tracking and advanced radar etc it might be possible to predict potential seizures and head them off. I guess my understanding of these things is poor.
     
  16. nomad

    nomad Star commenter

    As far as I am aware, the EU sanctions do not apply to ships or operators outside the EU's jurisdiction.

    The measures prohibit the following:

    • The sale, supply, transfer or export of jet fuel and additives specifically formulated for jet fuel to Syria; and
    • Providing direct or indirect financial assistance, insurance, reinsurance or brokering services relating to any of the above transactions
    It is important to note that the Regulations apply not just to the named parties but to companies owned or controlled by them.

    The Regulations apply:
    (i) within the territory of the EU,
    (ii) to any vessel under the jurisdiction of a Member State,
    (iii) to any person inside or outside the territory of the Union who is a national of a Member State,
    (iv) to any legal person, entity or body incorporated or constituted under the law of a Member State,
    (v) to any legal person, entity or body in respect of any business done in whole or in part within the Union.
     
  17. florian gassmann

    florian gassmann Star commenter

    And that, as I understand it, is the basis on which Gibraltar detained Grace 1. Contravention of EU Regulation 36/2012, Articles 8 and 9 of which prohibit the shipment of equipment, technology, and assistance to the Syrian oil industry

    The government of Gibraltar states:

    The Grace 1 was detained last week in Gibraltar when it freely navigated into British Gibraltar Territorial Waters to a point two miles off the Eastside of Gibraltar, having previously exited the international waters of the Straits of Gibraltar, on a pre-arranged call for provisions and spare parts.​

    The territorial waters of Gibraltar are, of course, part of the territorial waters of the EU and were being used to ship assistance (in the form of crude oil) to the Syrian oil industry:
    https://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/press-...-carrying-full-load-of-crude-oil-5222019-5112
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2019
  18. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    I thought Gibraltar was in the EU? They vote in EU elections...
     
  19. florian gassmann

    florian gassmann Star commenter

    Just to add that the Captain and First Officer of the Grace 1, who are both arrested, are Indian nationals - so I wouldn't be surprised if they knew nothing of the EU sanctions from 2012. It was certainly foolish to pre-arrange calling at Gibraltar for supplies and spares if they were running oil to Syria - and that pre-arrangement could well be how the authorities in Gibraltar were ready to impound the tanker.
     
  20. nomad

    nomad Star commenter

    I take your points, but I am still uncertain whether an EU state can use these regulations to apprehend a non-EU flagged vessel loaded with non-EU produce.

    I may be incorrect, of course, but I still do not think such a vessel straying into EC waters can be apprehended.
     

Share This Page