You sound as if people were surprised at this - with the way things had been going no one is surprised that Iran would take steps like this in response.
Ships under attack in the middle east
- Thread starter XeNoN89
- Start date
You sound as if people were surprised at this - with the way things had been going no one is surprised that Iran would take steps like this in response.
No I haven't told you that. I have previously told you a few times to pay attention and try to reply to what has actually been written though.
The intended beneficiary here is the Syrian people not the UK! Foreign policy isn't always self centred, the EU has taken a stance of applying sanctions on a regime that has actively massacred elements of its population, the UK being a member of the EU has enforced them.
You seem to have a bit of a warped world view to say the least but you should know that not everything we do relating to foreign policy is about what the UK can personally gain.
Every other UK country hasn't ignored them, you've been shown this already, asset seizures have taken place across the EU and have affected entities from plenty of non EU states. I gave you one example a few posts back of France imposing an asset freeze as a result of these same sanctions that affected companies from China and Lebanon.
As for tankers - I'd suggest you read the previous reply more carefully - it isn't clear that there have been (m)any tankers clearly breaching these sanctions and docking in EU ports. You've yet to show otherwise so it is rather flawed to make a point there re: the lack of previous seizures of something that you've not demonstrated to be common in the first place. I'd suggest again, from the previous article that it isn't common and if/when it does occur it perhaps isn't necessarily easy to detect (aside from with hindsight from tracking data). If you strongly believe that to not be the case then I'll ask again - why can't you provide any examples?
The regulations themselves drafted by the EU state that they apply to any aircraft or ship so please don't start that silliness again about not having a legal basis.
If you're going to get so wound up at having your nonsense corrected, facts presented to you and a different viewpoint then I suggest you calm down a bit before posting... telling people to "**** off" because you're unable to argue your point (mostly because you've simply been wrong a lot of the time in this thread) is just silly.
I'm not obfuscating anything - you've repeatedly asserted (incorrectly) that we had no legal basis for this action, you were wrong, this was pointed out to you multiple times, it took several pages for you to seemingly accept the point.
As for your prediction re: Iran... no ****, they literally said they would attempt to do this and UK ships were warned of this possibility, you didn't predict anything and you're rather silly to pretend that anyone else was surprised at Iran's actions.
Soldato
I suspect the area is simply too large and not enough resources.
I'd like to know how many British flagged ships operate in that area. I was under the impression that most of these shipping companies use so-called 'flags of convenience' these days and the majority are Panamanian, Liberian etc. Is it silly to suggest that British flagged vessels avoid the area if they can't be protected? Maybe these ships travel in a protected convoy? Is that feasible? I'd imagine it might be if only a handful ply those waters, would be nice to see some figures. I'm wondering if their removal from the area/region could happen anyway if the insurers decided to pull their coverage.
There isn't an oil embargo (or rather sanctions) with respect to exports to Syria (please pay attention as this has also been pointed out previously), there are financial and economic sanctions targeting specific entities.
Whether or not you think EU sanctions are justified or are a useful tool is a bit of a different question to whether or not an EU member state should enforce them. Having said that if an EU member state strongly objected to them then they'd have some say in how they were shaped in the first place particular with regards to the apparent humanitarian concerns you're expressing (albeit in your own rather unique/slightly unhinged style). As noted already, your questions about what the UK has to gain are misplaced, the intent here is humanitarian whether you agree with the specific approach or not. You are unfortunately again all over the place here - I've already answered your question about other tankers being seized and given you an explanation so I'm too sure why you're pretending to ignore that response.
As for the endings to your previous two posts - try to read what has been written and put forth a decent argument instead of throwing your toys out of the pram like that!
Whether or not you think EU sanctions are justified or are a useful tool is a bit of a different question to whether or not an EU member state should enforce them. Having said that if an EU member state strongly objected to them then they'd have some say in how they were shaped in the first place particular with regards to the apparent humanitarian concerns you're expressing (albeit in your own rather unique/slightly unhinged style). As noted already, your questions about what the UK has to gain are misplaced, the intent here is humanitarian whether you agree with the specific approach or not. You are unfortunately again all over the place here - I've already answered your question about other tankers being seized and given you an explanation so I'm too sure why you're pretending to ignore that response.
As for the endings to your previous two posts - try to read what has been written and put forth a decent argument instead of throwing your toys out of the pram like that!
Cannot prove a negative because this is a first and foremost unique situation. Have you got any evidence for example of any other EU nation enforcing EU sanctions against a Non-EU nation with respect to Syria? I will say there is this comment in the papers, first line being interesting https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/20/gulf-crisis-tanker-retaliation-iran-hormuz
Similarly (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/04/oil-supertanker-bound-for-syria-detained-in-gibraltar.html)
Also as I say, we keep going on about EU law, yet by all accounts, there is no gratitude which speaks volumes.
Once again, will add this comment here by the old Swedish prime minster and chair of EU foreign relation council who is also questioning the move. So yeah, when the only people on the EU side who actually speak out are questioning our move (unless you know of any that are in favour of what we did aside the US) says it all to me really.
The EU I doubt would have cared and only comments that have come out pretty much are to that effect. In fact apparently there is pressure on UK from EU allies to release the tanker https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...pture-gibraltar-chief-minister-flies-uk-talks
So in all, we have a wall of silence from the EU for enforcing one of their sanctions. The ex-head of an EU country questioning the move, a EU countries foreign ministry saying it was done at the behest of the US and prior to capture of the British flagged tanker being captured, pressure from European allies seemingly to release the tanker.
To add If we really want to go by the law, what concrete proof is there this ship was going to Syria? The Gibraltar government used the words "allege", UK government use words "suspect" and Iranian government deny the statement it was headed to Syria.
https://www.apnews.com/6c36f5aa1ba942569e5efcfd48e33324
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...pture-gibraltar-chief-minister-flies-uk-talks
We can go around in circles here and doubt we will agree, but all I see is, first from the legal aspect the UK suspecting the tanker going to Syria (nothing concrete), Iran saying its not (which they would have course). No EU nation coming out in favour of the action, on the contrary the few comments made are questioning our decision. You would see some positive comments leaked regardless of negotiations with respect to the nuclear deal, yet all comments are against the action. Seemingly some pressure being applied before this recent event in the saga to release the tanker by European allied. Also as a bonus we are left negotiating with Iran, throwing out some "threats" and largely looking like fools.
Yes, see previous posts relating to asset seizures - companies from Lebanon, China etc... I'm not asking you to prove a negative, I'm asking whether there have been any breaches in the past, I've laid out the reasoning in the previous posts to the other poster but I'd suggest that it is probably rare and when it does occur (if indeed it has occurred in the past) then more likely to be detected after the fact. Given that the US has been unilaterally enforcing sanctions on Iran I'd suspect that they'd have been quite keen to highlight any vessels that could fall foul of EU sanctions too - I suspect that they've certainly not been ignoring them and if we or others had then the likes of John Bolton etc... would be quite vocal!
Again I'd cite the rather obvious situation with the Iranian nuclear deal, I have answered this point.
Well I've already answered the point re: the silence from the EU so there isn't much point in dwelling there, we'll have to agree to disagree, the further point I made was with regards to the fact that Iranian entities were specifically mentioned in the regulations so it doesn't indicate that the EU was intending to shy away from taking acting with respect to Iranian breaches of these sanctions. You mentioned pressure to releaser the tanker - what is that in relation to?
The UK wasn't in much of a position to not take action here if we're fully aware of an apparent breach of these sanctions then we're duty bound to adhere to them and investigate, I don't see what basis we'd have to turn around to the US and essentially tell them that yes we're aware of the tanker too and have been tracking it (something we've portably done in conjunction with them tbh..) but we're not going to enforce the Syrian sanctions we've already signed up to. That just doesn't make any sense tbh.. but I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.
Who seized ships first? It wasn't Iran.
Shame we don't have a combat version of the Echo class - would need some extra speed, stick some rapier and sea spear installations on (high time rapier was retired from its main role anyhow but useful in this case) can additionally carry light patrol vessel(s) and/or helicopter, etc.
It is a silly point - Iran has numerous times as I've pointed out seized various ships in far more dubious circumstances often to put pressure on countries to act in a certain way towards them and with stuff going on at the moment it was only a matter of time before it started to more majorly impact shipping - with the failure of attempts to give Iran relief from US sanctions over the breakdown of the nuclear deal it was likely British and French, etc. vessels would have become targets anyhow with Iran's frustrations over the ineffectiveness of INSTEX and trying to put pressure on the countries involved to do more.
Last edited:
Tangents yet again. I'm talking about the present.
In this latest series of escalations who acted first?
It's not Iran pushing for war if you hadn't noticed, but they are clearly ready to fight back hence the advice for lifeboats.
Those seizure assets, what were they exactly you are referring too? I doubt it was similar to this, I.E EU nation enforcing sanctions on a Non-EU country in respect to a EU sanctioned country, though happy to be proven wrong. Yes, I doubt there have been many example, hence not going to prove it from either points.
We can move on from the wall of silence from the EU as you have your view there, but does not negate the fact the few comments that have come out from other EU nations or ex heads have been against and or / questioning the action we took.
In regards to pressure to release the tanker, it was as it implies in the article, European and Gulf allies pressuring UK to release Grace 1 if the article is to be believed.
That is the point, we use the EU law as an example, yet in all the releases and comments by UK government, everything is allege and suspect. Quiet different from having confirmed evidence.
Now do not mistake what I have been saying. Do I think there was a legal basis, sure depending how you interpret the sanctions (as evidenced there seems to be varying opinions, even from former head of EU states). However everything since shows in the scheme of things and position the UK was trying to take, it was the wrong move.
Anyways, yeah, going to have different opinions here, still always good to see the other side. Bed for me I think now
If they do then I suspect he'll somehow blame the UK with a sound argument along the lines of "but but the UK started it".
Merchant escorts in international waters aren't going to be starting a war with Iran!
The target here is Syria not Iran - Iran just happened to be the entity (no doubt to US pleasure) that was in conflict with EU sanctions against Syria. No need for escalation standard procedure would be to intercept the ship, investigate, return to original owner when sufficient assurances were given they wouldn't continue on with the path of action in conflict with EU sanctions. If the UK continued to hold the vessel after a reasonable time for an investigation or refusing to release it then they might have a case for escalation.
Last edited:
Sorry but just to get this clear this isn't a case of sanctions being enforced on a non-EU country - this is a case of sanctions being enforced within EU territorial waters on a civilian/merchant ship (in this case a Panama flagged/Singaporean owned vessel that was ultimately owned by some Iranian entity or carrying cargo belonging to some Iranian entity).
If you see the earlier post from this evening in reply to the other poster it concerns assets being frozen belonging to a Chinese and a Lebanese company for example by the French.
edit - I'll post this link again just as an example:
https://www.scmp.com/news/world/mid...mplicated-has-assets-frozen-france-over-links
Can you be more specific - who, what pressure? What are you actually referring to, just some rumours/inferences (if so what?) or actual positions that other EU nations have taken? I'm not being difficult I was just wanting clarity on what you're actually referring to with regards to this.
Why was it the wrong move though. I mean are you saying that if we strongly suspect that a vessel is breaching sanctions that we've signed up to then we shouldn't seize it when in UK controlled waters and investigate?
What varying opinions are you referring to with regards to the legality of this seizure? Aside from Spain kicking off about Gibraltar's waters being theirs.
Fight back against what exactly? You seem to be quite a vocal supporter of Iran.
So far they seem to have mined some oil tankers, attempted and failed to seize one tanker, seized three more and released one (all while not actually in their territorial waters too!).
That doesn't seem to be "fighting back" rather those actions seem to be rather provocative and rather illegal though strangely enough after bleating about the supposed illegality of the UK's actions you're rather quiet when it comes to criticising Iran - which just adds to the irony when you've repeatedly called me "traitor".
Iran certainly seems to be pushing, perhaps not for war at the moment (it is stopping just short of that) but it is pushing the limits and this could quite easily escalate - we've already had incidents of drones being fired and Iran having to back down when getting caught trying to seize a UK vessel previously... those things can easily escalate and it is rather reckless of Iran to be taking this path.
Soldato
But in the same vein, you are using negatives to back your argument: the statement, or lack there of, by the EU on the matter of these sanctions. You make the leap that because nothing has been said, it is clear that this is all about the US and not the EU. Personally, I just think the EU don't want to be drawn into what is now a military matter. Of course, they're not the right entity to do such a thing.
Stop feeding the troll! LolGreat argument again...
Thank you, will give a full read when I get a second. However from a quick glance, I see no mention of this being an EU specific sanction? Cannot tell, any ideas?
I post all links from where I am quoting source material. In this instance the guardian mentioned it: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...pture-gibraltar-chief-minister-flies-uk-talks
No further specifics, though suspect they are more informed in terms of links and behind the scenes then I.
Pretty obvious it seems to be the wrong move given the resultant action's. From all indications it seems that the UK have used suspect, believe etc. So sure we can investigate, but there are consequences and they are playing out as we speak and to what end exactly? Lets be frank, apply sanctions, won't matter. Military, not going to happen. Only thing that is happening is a tit for tat, are if anything affects British interests more given the fact the lane is more likely heavily used by British flagged ships vs what is going through the med.
In regards to the varying opinions on the legal aspect of the seizure, already posted the comments from former head of Sweden, will post it again:
So yeah, when you get former EU heads and those on foreign relations council questioning the move, even if legal then says it all really.
Well yes it is obvious that it has some potential repercussions but that in itself doesn't mean it is the wrong move to make. I mean as an example the shooting of Mark Duggan sparked the London riots but it doesn't mean the police weren't correct to enforce the law and shoot an armed suspect that had apparently just pointed a gun at them.
Likewise what is the point in agreeing to the EU having sanctions if we're not prepared to enforce them/have a situation where a quite blatant suspected breach of them won't result in a vessel being seized and investigated.
I think that just indicates that it isn't just US leaders like Trump that can be rather ignorant/silly. The line "Iran is not a member of the EU" just says it all really... he's a bit clueless regarding what has actually happened here. If he's going to take that line I wonder what he'd make of say an Iranian plane carrying arms making use of EU airports etc...