Ships under attack in the middle east

dowie · 21 Jul 2019 at 13:16

Radox-0 said:
This is why I asked for clarification if this was an EU sanction as I see no reference of it, only that line that "France" sanctioned 25 people / companies. If this was an EU sanction France done the name of it in, then it would mean indeed the EU does not comment of every sanction enforcement as I can see no reference of it and that would weaken my own argument that the EU staying quiet on us enforcing the sanction. So I would be weakening my own position but happy to do so.

Well I don't think there is much point in carrying on with this issue, you're apparently reading into the lack of response from the EU to suggest something along the lines of them not agreeing with the sanctions they came up with? That is highly dubious as already pointed out considering they specifically target Iranian entities within the regulations. The simpler explanation is them not wanting to stoke a delicate situation with Iran while they're trying to hold together then nuclear agreement.

I'm going to take an Occam's razor approach here and suggest that the Iranian nuclear deal is the relevant factor.

Like I said before we can agree to disagree, if you want to stick with your narrative for the silence from the EU then that's cool. Questions about whether or not some enforcement action appears on some web page you're interested in etc.. doesn't seem particularly relevant here.

ubersonic · 21 Jul 2019 at 13:26

i know nothing said:
so there has been comment from EU countries as well as the EU then? So what was all that about silence from the EU speaking volumes? Or words to that effect.

They have commented on the Iranian seizure of British tankers, what they have remained silent on is the British seizure of a tanker. Aside from the Spanish foreign minister (also the European Council candidate to become the EU’s next foreign policy chief) stepping out of line to revel the USA asked Spain to do it first and got refused, and co-chair of the European council on foreign relations pointing out that the sanctions didn't apply as Iran isn't a member of the EU.

dowie · 21 Jul 2019 at 13:30

Well Spain venting about anything relating to Gibraltar isn't anything new. It is rather dubious that the US asked "Spain to do it first" that is rather dependent on where the ship ended up, not to mention that the UK was apparently also aware of and monitoring the vessel (and likely both the UK and US were sharing intelligence regarding it as is pretty normal).

Rroff · 21 Jul 2019 at 13:30

dowie said:
Then they board two "UK vessels", strangely the one that actually was UK owned (and Liberian flagged) has been released.

I dunno if it is true but supposedly it is also used regularly by countries who are also friendly to Iran.

dowie · 21 Jul 2019 at 13:32

Rroff said:
I dunno if it is true but supposedly it is also used regularly by countries who are also friendly to Iran.

I guess in that case perhaps the owner of the cargo might well have been a factor then.... so they're left with the empty Swedish vessel instead and no useful hostages.

Jokester · 21 Jul 2019 at 13:36

dowie said:
Well Spain venting about anything relating to Gibraltar isn't anything new. It is rather dubious that the US asked "Spain to do it first" that is rather dependent on where the ship ended up, not to mention that the UK was apparently also aware of and monitoring the vessel (and likely both the UK and US were sharing intelligence regarding it as is pretty normal).

It raises questions over Spain's conduct as well if they aren't enforcing EU sanctions, though the most likely mundane reason will be that the tanker transited through recoginised international shipping lanes so Spain would have been acting illegally to have boarded it. Different matter once the tanker decided to stop off at Gibraltar though.

Radox-0 · 21 Jul 2019 at 13:39

dowie said:
Eh? Have you read the past few pages?

Sure and I feel I have been respectful throughout even when I disagree.

dowie said:
It was more in terms of the leverage aspect, I mean when UK ships start transiting again there is a good chance they'll do so in convoys at set times and/or with Royal Marines on board.

The Iranians therefore might well have massively reduced their chances of securing another bargaining chip and the one they did get isn't exactly optimal.

So, Iran has either forced us into creating convoys (which will impact shipping if they need to wait for the convoy to form) or expend resources with RM on board. Will we be able to keep ships / resources going indefinitely without a political resolution? I doubt it. Will be a a drain hence why I expect a political resolution will be pushed for.

dowie said:
I'd definitely disagree there - this would have a lot more impact if they had British merchant navy officers to parade on TV or send to some show trail. The flag has a PR effect but in reality they've left with an empty Swedish owned ship and some Indian's/Russians etc...

In fact I'd suggest that the UK could technically hold firm on this one and carry on with the same policy towards the vessel held in Gibraltar re: stating that they're open to releasing it if/when Iran provides assurances re: the destination of the oil. There would be much more pressure on the British government if there were British citizens being held by Iran (Iran is quite keen on Western hostages).

The PR effect is important however in respect to the flag. Its likely why Iran released the Liberian flagged one, even if British operated, while holding onto the British flagged one but Swedish operated. Pretty much every outlet leads with British tanker being seized and if there is a mention of Sweden or nationalities of the citizen's takes second place. Suffice to say, given its the UK running around trying to resolve things rather then Sweden further reinforces this.

I expect this will be resolved, but would not be surprised to see the Grace 1 released in order to facilitate the release of British tanker. After that point, Iran will have made there point in that they will attempt to retaliate when they can to what they perceive as slights.

Dis86 · 21 Jul 2019 at 13:45

Freakbro said:
Oh you should, it's been a highly entertaining catch up this morning! Especially when Sooty stayed up far past his bedtime and got over tired, bet he's going to be a nightmare for his parents today

Toys everywhere? Dummy spat out?

Freakbro · 21 Jul 2019 at 13:48

Dis86 said:
Toys everywhere? Dummy spat out?

Lets just say it turned into the [adult swim] version of The Sooty Show! :eek:

Dis86 · 21 Jul 2019 at 13:50

Freakbro said:
Lets just say it turned into the [adult swim] version of The Sooty Show!

Ahhh, sex toys everywhere and dummy...well that ain't a dummy

ubersonic · 21 Jul 2019 at 13:53

Jokester said:
It raises questions over Spain's conduct as well if they aren't enforcing EU sanctions, though the most likely mundane reason will be that the tanker transited through recoginised international shipping lanes so Spain would have been acting illegally to have boarded it. Different matter once the tanker decided to stop off at Gibraltar though.

Wait so if a ship is sailing in a recognised international shipping lane nobody is allowed to board it? even if it's in their waters?

Also Spain don't recognise the existence of Gibraltarian waters, they just consider it a part of Spanish waters that make the British uppity when Spanish warships sail through it.

dowie · 21 Jul 2019 at 13:55

Radox-0 said:
The PR effect is important however in respect to the flag. Its likely why Iran released the Liberian flagged one, even if British operated, while holding onto the British flagged one but Swedish operated.

Important yes, but not nearly as much as if they'd got UK hostages now.

Jokester · 21 Jul 2019 at 13:56

ubersonic said:
Wait so if a ship is sailing in a recognised international shipping lane nobody is allowed to board it? even if it's in their waters?

Yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Gibraltar

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, vessels passing through the strait do so under the regime of transit passage, rather than the more limited innocent passage allowed in most territorial waters.

dowie · 21 Jul 2019 at 13:57

ubersonic said:
Wait so if a ship is sailing in a recognised international shipping lane nobody is allowed to board it? even if it's in their waters?

In certain parts of the world there exists freedom of navigation, namely where the territorial waters of two countries are immediately adjacent to each other so as not to give any International waters between them - such as between Spain and Morocco or Iran and Oman etc...

ubersonic · 21 Jul 2019 at 13:59

Jokester said:
Yes.

That's really interesting, I didn't know shipping lanes gave such protection, so like North Korea could ship nukes to Iran and as long as they stick to the lanes nobody can stop them even when passing through their waters? That's worrying

dowie · 21 Jul 2019 at 13:59

Timing of this was sadly a bit premature:

https://www.themilitarytimes.co.uk/uncategorised/final-royal-navy-helicopter-returns-from-oman/

Operation Chobdahar has seen Royal Navy helicopter crews support Oman’s maritime security since 2001 as part of Kipion – the code name for the long-standing UK maritime presence which secures Britain’s economic interests in the Gulf.

As part of the operation, UK aircraft including Nimrod, Merlin and most recently Wildcat helicopters from 815 Naval Air Squadron have flown more than 17,000 hours on joint operations.

815 NAS will now redeploy Wildcat to support other operational tasking as they are no longer needed in Oman, having achieved huge successes against illicit smuggling and other criminal activity.

Would have been rather useful to have a couple of RN wildcat helicopters based in Oman and observing shipping in that particular shipping lane right now!

dowie · 21 Jul 2019 at 14:01

ubersonic said:
That's really interesting, I didn't know shipping lanes gave such protection, so like North Korea could ship nukes to Iran and as long as they stick to the lanes nobody can stop them even when passing through their waters?

No, don't be silly.

Kenai · 21 Jul 2019 at 14:01

ubersonic said:
Wait so if a ship is sailing in a recognised international shipping lane nobody is allowed to board it? even if it's in their waters?

It's not an invincibility shield, so certain things like transporting nukes around would be subject to other regulations.

Jokester · 21 Jul 2019 at 14:03

ubersonic said:
That's really interesting, I didn't know shipping lanes gave such protection, so like North Korea could ship nukes to Iran and as long as they stick to the lanes nobody can stop them even when passing through their waters? That's worrying

It's only in very specific places where ships can't transit outside the 12nm territorial waters border, elsewhere they would still fall under the local jurisdiction. And if there was a credible nuclear threat, then rules would be broken.

Rroff · 21 Jul 2019 at 14:03

ubersonic said:
That's really interesting, I didn't know shipping lanes gave such protection, so like North Korea could ship nukes to Iran and as long as they stick to the lanes nobody can stop them even when passing through their waters? That's worrying

The key factor is it is pending UN resolution - EU sanctions don't give anyone a reason to seize a ship in international designated waters but if NK was known to be shipping nuclear weapon relevant assets to Iran then likely they would fall foul of the relevant regulations and/or the UN would act.