Ships under attack in the middle east

[dowie]

So indeed, while ship is Swedish owned, being British flagged means we are the ones running around here.

I wouldn't make that assumption based on headlines - you don't know what diplomatic efforts are going on from the Swedish side.

I mean the "Iranian" vessel seized in Gibraltar isn't Iranian flagged, it uses a Panama flag but the press make reference to it being an Iranian vessel, seemingly the flag isn't relevant in that case.

I think you'll find that it makes for better headlines and is more relevant to the ongoing story as a whole to emphasise the UK flag with regards to the vessel seized by Iran. Yes the UK does have some obligations and is of course objecting but it is a Swedish ship and so I'd be very surprised if the Swedish government wasn't too despite not being the focus of newspaper headlines.

 

[Radox-0]

I wouldn't make that assumption based on headlines - you don't know what diplomatic efforts are going on from the Swedish side.

I mean the "Iranian" vessel seized in Gibraltar isn't Iranian flagged, it uses a Panama flag but the press make reference to it being an Iranian vessel, seemingly the flag isn't relevant in that case.

I think you'll find that it makes for better headlines and is more relevant to the ongoing story as a whole to emphasise the UK flag with regards to the vessel seized by Iran. Yes the UK does have some obligations and is of course objecting but it is a Swedish ship and so I'd be very surprised if the Swedish government wasn't too despite not being the focus of newspaper headlines.

feel free to draw your own conclusions. I am following what I can see as diplomatic efforts from the UK and allies and nations across the world referencing it as British tanker. You disagree so be it.

Sure but the Iranian vessel in this instance is trying to get around sanctions hence the subterfuge. Panama know this hence why they seem to not care a whit. In fact Panama are removing their flags from ships that break sanctions and actually did remove Grace 1 from its registry on May 29th: https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2019/07/15/532224.htm

A separate supertanker, the Grace 1, made its way to Gibraltar in early July, where it was seized by British Royal Marines on suspicion of violating sanctions against Syria.

The vessel was fully loaded with crude suspected to be bound for Syria’s Banyas refinery, Gibraltar authorities said.

The vessel arrived in Gibraltar showing the Panama name at its hull, but the Panamanian government later clarified it had been removed from its registry on May 29.

“Panama will maintain its flag withdrawal policy,” Rafael Cigarruista, general director of Merchant Marine from Panama’s Maritime Authority, told Reuters in an emailed statement.

“Our intention is to improve our fleet’s percentage of compliance, not only regarding sanctions by international organizations, but also Panama’s current legislation and maritime security rules,” he added.

 

[dowie]

feel free to draw your own conclusions. I am following what I can see as diplomatic efforts from the UK and allies and nations across the world referencing it as British tanker. You disagree so be it.

Sure but the Iranian vessel in this instance is trying to get around sanctions hence the subterfuge.

You're following headlines, you've got no idea what talks are going on behind the scenes between Sweden and Iran, so yes' I'll disagree with drawing conclusions from newspaper headlines re: lack of action from Sweden diplomatically.

It is a British tanker as much as the vessel in Gibraltar is a Panamanian tanker. In that case the owners are officially Singaporean (unofficially Iranian) and in this case the owners are a well known Swedish shipping company (whose name is rather prominently displayed on the vessel).

The headlines are flagging up the UK connection as that is quite obviously the reason for Iran targeting shipping, in order to capture a 'British" vessel, they've ended up with a Swedish one flying a British flag and no British crew members. Some articles do of course mention the fact that it is a Swedish vessel, but as far as headlines are concerned then it is rather obvious why they're emphasising the UK element.

 

[Rroff]

and no British crew members

Given the mix of nationalities, etc. that usually happens with these things they'd probably have better luck bagging a Russian vessel if they wanted to hold some British crew :s

 

[dowie]

Given the mix of nationalities, etc. that usually happens with these things they'd probably have better luck bagging a Russian vessel if they wanted to hold some British crew :s

Yup LOL. A Liberian one probably has better odds of British crew than a British flagged one tbh...

 

[Radox-0]

You're following headlines, you've got no idea what talks are going on behind the scenes between Sweden and Iran, so yes' I'll disagree with drawing conclusions from newspaper headlines re: lack of action from Sweden diplomatically.

It is a British tanker as much as the vessel in Gibraltar is a Panamanian tanker. In that case the owners are officially Singaporean (unofficially Iranian) and in this case the owners are a well known Swedish shipping company (whose name is rather prominently displayed on the vessel).

The headlines are flagging up the UK connection as that is quite obviously the reason for Iran targeting shipping, in order to capture a 'British" vessel, they've ended up with a Swedish one flying a British flag and no British crew members. Some articles do of course mention the fact that it is a Swedish vessel, but as far as headlines are concerned then it is rather obvious why they're emphasising the UK element.

Do you have any idea what is going on behind the scene? No so like you am making my own conclusions. Similarly I have not said Sweden is point blank not doing anything, what I have linked too is a lack of any information from their side and how their press is pushing the narrative it is a British tanker. Likewise as I have posted, its bizarre the French government and others are showing solidarity with us and not Sweden with it being Swedish owned no? So yes I will stick with my comment of

So indeed, while ship is Swedish owned, being British flagged means we are the ones running around here.

Even if the Swedish do get involved, it will mainly be us doing the bulk of negotiations.

It is a British tanker as much as the vessel in Gibraltar is a Panamanian tanker

Well its not Panamanian, as I pointed out, they were removed from the registry. Similarly I do not see equivalency here. Iran is going through the shell corporations to hide ownership for subterfuge reasons. Panama evidently does not care a whit (hence taking it off the register) likewise for Singapore who know it was just set up as a shell corporation. On the other hand we, or at least I hope we do likely care about vessels flagged with our country as typically it means we have an onus to look out for them.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49063646

Ships must fly the flag of a nation state but it does not need to be the same nation as its owners.

The Stena Impero is Swedish-owned and those on board are Indian, Russian, Latvian and Filipino.

But it is the UK flag that is important symbolically and politically, explained Richard Meade from maritime publication Lloyds List.

"Historically speaking it means that the UK owes protection to the vessel."

Very likely why when they had a choice of two ships, Iran let the Liberian flagged but British operated ship go, but kept UK flagged but Swedish owned ship as they know symbolically and politically it means more.

Anyways, can tell we never going to agree with totally different opinions so going to leave you to it. I suspect we will see how things play out over next few weeks / months

 

[dowie]

Do you have any idea what is going on behind the scene? No so like you am making my own conclusions. Similarly I have not said Sweden is point blank not doing anything, what I have linked too is a lack of any information from their side and how their press is pushing the narrative it is a British tanker.

No I don't have any information bout what is going on behind the scenes, that is my point ergo I'm not making assertions about the lack of diplomatic activity based on newspaper headlines but rather I'm pointing out that you don't know. Yes, you're basically reading into a lack of information and making your own narrative based on that lack of info.

Well its not Panamanian, as I pointed out, they were removed from the registry. Similarly I do not see equivalency here. Iran is going through the shell corporations to hide ownership for subterfuge reasons. Panama evidently does not care a whit (hence taking it off the register) likewise for Singapore who know it was just set up as a shell corporation. On the other hand we, or at least I hope we do likely care about vessels flagged with our country as typically it means we have an onus to look out for them.

No one is claiming we're not taking this up with Iran, the point was in reference to the ship's ownership.

 

[Rroff]

Iran let the Liberian flagged but British operated ship go

As before I have no idea what the truth is but I've seen several mentions that the Liberian flagged ship frequently did business for countries Iran is on friendly terms with (I believe one being Algeria) who would have been inconvenienced if it had been held.

 

[dowie]

^^^ that sounds more plausible and/or perhaps the cargo belonging to a country Iran is closely allied with.

 

[englishpremier]

I wouldn't make that assumption based on headlines - you don't know what diplomatic efforts are going on from the Swedish side.

I mean the "Iranian" vessel seized in Gibraltar isn't Iranian flagged, it uses a Panama flag but the press make reference to it being an Iranian vessel, seemingly the flag isn't relevant in that case.

I think you'll find that it makes for better headlines and is more relevant to the ongoing story as a whole to emphasise the UK flag with regards to the vessel seized by Iran. Yes the UK does have some obligations and is of course objecting but it is a Swedish ship and so I'd be very surprised if the Swedish government wasn't too despite not being the focus of newspaper headlines.

Why would Sweden make any, or much at all diplomatic efforts? If its a British flagged ship, it is sovereign British territory. The owner's nationality is neither here nor there really.

 

[Radox-0]

No I don't have any information bout what is going on behind the scenes, that is my point ergo I'm not making assertions about the lack of diplomatic activity based on newspaper headlines but rather I'm pointing out that you don't know. Yes, you're basically reading into a lack of information and making your own narrative based on that lack of info.



No one is claiming we're not taking this up with Iran, the point was in reference to the ship's ownership.

Once again, sure if it was just newspapers feel free to crucify my opinions, However, when other countries embassies and foreign offices refer to it as British tanker and when the UK government is the one looking at sanctions and presenting the case to the United Nations, then yes, I will come to the opinion that it is the UK who is in the driving seat to resolve with Iran full well knowing this.

 

[dowie]

Why would Sweden make any, or much at all diplomatic efforts? If its a British flagged ship, it is sovereign British territory. The owner's nationality is neither here nor there really.

It isn't sovereign British territory.

Why would Sweden make any effort - well it is a Swedish owned ship, it belongs to a big Swedish shipping company and Iran is currently holding it for spurious reasons.

 

[Malevolence]

Refit all tankers with ballistic glass and armoured external doors, then just have the crew gather on the bridge and wave at the silly little Iranians playing at soldier.

 

[Nasher]

Thing is Montrose was only about 10 minutes away. They even told the crew to delay/ignore them as long as possible.

They should have shut the engines down and just sat in their cabins. Iran's troops wouldn't be able to do anything about it, it would take at least that long to get the ship going again.

 

[Radox-0]

Thing is Montrose was only about 10 minutes away. They even told the crew to delay/ignore them as long as possible.

They should have shut the engines down and just sat in their cabins. Iran's troops wouldn't be able to do anything about it, it would take at least that long to get the **** going again.

It was slightly further out then 10 mins I think, about an hour away according to the defence secretary https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...tanker-seized-collision-hunt-warns-dangerous/

Penny Mordaunt, the defence secretary, said the incident happened in Omani waters and was a "hostile act".

But she said the British Type 23 frigate HMS Montrose was 60 minutes away from being able to help the Stena Impero when it was boarded by Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

Would be curious how long it would take for the ship to get going again. Though I do imagine when your getting boarded or something by commando's, adrenaline gets going and likely not thinking straight.

 

[Nasher]

If they shut everything down probably quite a long time, it takes miles to speed up/down and turn tankers. Plus some time playing dumb (the warp core is flooded and all that).

 

[Jokester]

The video of the boarding if I remember correctly shows the tanker going a decent rate of knots.

 

[dowie]

Would have been interesting if they had done the above and the RN then arrived with Iranian republican guard troops already onboard albeit the tanker still in Oman's waters and not moving. Rather a different result if the unarmed helicopter and little speed boats had to bugger off and Iranian troops were taking into custody.

 

[Over Clocker]

Question: are there any decommissioned or mothballed Royal Navy ships sitting around which could be pressed back into action, or have they all been sold now to Brazil etc?

 

[Dis86]

Question: are there any decommissioned or mothballed Royal Navy ships sitting around which could be pressed back into action, or have they all been sold now to Brazil etc?

There's a submarine on its way. Becomes very risky to try and take ships when you don't know if that's lurking nearby or not.