Ships under attack in the middle east

[Dis86]

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

Not standard shipping lanes. Just areas with right of free passage.

 

[ubersonic]

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

K, understood, so Spain couldn't stop the ship even if they wanted too while it was sailing through their waters as it was in a protected lane, but when it passed through Gibraltars waters it left the lane enabling us to act, got it.

 

[dowie]

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.

Yup, in particular:

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1267&context=yjil
"
Article 39 sets forth the duties of ships and aircraft exercising the rightof transit passage. It provides that a vessel must proceed without delay, must not threaten or use force against the sovereignty, territorial integ- rity, or political independence of states bordering straits, and must not violate any of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations.
"

 

[Minusorange]

K, understood, so Spain couldn't stop the ship even if they wanted too while it was sailing through their waters as it was in a protected lane, but when it passed through Gibraltars waters it left the lane enabling us to act, got it.

They were seized because they were taking on supplies, there's a stipulation in the agreement that taking on crew or cargo puts you under jurisdiction of the territorial waters as opposed to the right of transit in international straights, had they not taken on board supplies they would have been able to continue unimpeded

 

[Radox-0]

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

I guess we will see over next few weeks how (if made public) the importance the UK government will attach in getting this released. Though Iran does not seem to capitulate easily, even in case of UK hostages, or I suppose, Dual in this case such as Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe there is usually a steep price to pay and even still we have not been able to get her released after years.

 

[Jokester]

I guess we will see over next few weeks how (if made public) the importance the UK government will attach in getting this released. Though Iran does not seem to capitulate easily, even in case of UK hostages, or I suppose, Dual in this case such as Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe there is usually a steep price to pay and even still we have not been able to get her released after years.

Though to be honest, in her case it was more to do with BoJo "intervening" and pretty much implying to the Iranians she was spying for us.

 

[dowie]

They were seized because they were taking on supplies, there's a stipulation in the agreement that taking on crew or cargo puts you under jurisdiction of the territorial waters as opposed to the right of transit in international straights, had they not taken on board supplies they would have been able to continue unimpeded

Nothing to do with the right of transit in international straights, they were in Gibraltar’s waters, see maps posted previously.

 

[Radox-0]

Though to be honest, in her case it was more to do with BoJo "intervening" and pretty much implying to the Iranians she was spying for us.

She was jailed in April 2016. That gaffe Johnson made was on 1st Nov 2017. So yes Johnson did not help, but we are talking over a year and a half later from said comment, yet in the interim a release was not secured, goes to show these are not easy things and Iran does not simply just bend over, even when UK citizens are involved (granted dual nationals)

 

[Minusorange]

Nothing to do with the right of transit in international straights, they were in Gibraltar’s waters, see maps posted previously.

um no, it still hasn't been proven exactly where the ship was when it was taking on supplies and where it was when it was boarded by the Marines

 

[Jokester]

She was jailed in April 2016. That gaffe Johnson made was on 1st Nov 2017. So yes Johnson did not help, but we are talking over a year and a half later from said comment, yet in the interim a release was not secured, goes to show these are not easy things and Iran does not simply just bend over, even when UK citizens are involved (granted dual nationals)

We try and avoid getting involved in domestic criminal matters, and I suspect our lack of active engagement was probably because she was involved in what she was accused of. Of course BoJo wading in and largely confirming the accusation re-inforced Iran's position.

 

[dowie]

um no, it still hasn't been proven exactly where the ship was when it was taking on supplies and where it was when it was boarded by the Marines

It was posted earlier complete with map.

Also you’re just taking nonsense - you mention a”stipulation in the agreement” please do provide a citation.

The ship was in Gibraltar’s waters, Gibraltar is part of the EU, the ship was suspected of breaking EU sanctions relating to Syria’s

This isn’t complicated yet for some reason people have persistently just thrown in nonsensical arguments or made dubious claims they can’t back up etc...

 

[Radox-0]

We try and avoid getting involved in domestic criminal matters, and I suspect our lack of active engagement was probably because she was involved in what she was accused of. Of course BoJo wading in and largely confirming the accusation re-inforced Iran's position.

Possibly, I personally think the reason is leverage. They have something we want, now they have something we want, hence suggestion of the complex hostage exchange back in Apr 2019 by Iran’s foreign minister with respect to Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. BoJo's comments did not change anything. They held her for that long prior to BoJo's comments and would have done so until they had something they wanted, regardless of Johnson's comments. They are happy to build up ammunition (hostages and leverage) and use it in turn when they want something.

Will play out broadly similar here regardless of if there were British citizens on the tanker or not I expect, will likely be Grace 1 for Stena Impero

 

[dowie]

Will play out broadly similar here regardless of if there were British citizens on the tanker or not I expect, will likely be Grace 1 for Stena Impero

The UK was already prepared to release Grace 1 given assurances re: Syria. Are you suggesting the UK will now ignore its obligations re: Syria and just release in return for this vessel?

I’d hope that the UK sticks to the same line re: the release of the Grace 1 that it had before this Iranian action.

 

[Radox-0]

The UK was already prepared to release Grace 1 given assurances re: Syria. Are you suggesting the UK will now ignore its obligations re: Syria and just release in return for this vessel?

I’d hope that the UK sticks to the same line re: the release of the Grace 1 that it had before this Iranian action.

Where did I say ignore obligations in regards to Syria? I did not. I fully expect it will be framed as if assurances were given Grace 1 will not go to Syria which they were willing to do anyways to de-escalate prior to this incident, so obligations in check and faced save, while Iran will look to release the Stena Impero.

I would not be surprised if given the time it takes to coordinate this, the 30 day petition to the Gibraltar supreme court will also wrap up.

 

[dowie]

Where did I say ignore obligations in regards to Syria? I did not.

You didn't, thus the question, if you had then I'd not have asked.

I fully expect it will be framed as if assurances were given Grace 1 will not go to Syria which they were willing to do anyways to de-escalate prior to this incident, so obligations in check and faced save, while Iran will look to release the Stena Impero.

I would not be surprised if given the time it takes to coordinate this, the 30 day petition to the Gibraltar supreme court will also wrap up.

It is just that you said it "will likely be Grace 1 for Stena Impero" that's all. If the UK does what it was already prepared to do anyway prior to Iran seizing the UK vessel then it doesn't seem to be that at all. for example if the 30 days does run out and/or assurances are received then the UK might well release the tanker regardless.

 

[Radox-0]

You didn't, thus the question, if you had then I'd not have asked.



It is just that you said it "will likely be Grace 1 for Stena Impero" that's all. If the UK does what it was already prepared to do anyway prior to Iran seizing the UK vessel then it doesn't seem to be that at all.

I did not say or suggest anything in regards to obligations one way or another, you injected that element, but hope my answer clarifies things. No I do not think it will be all that different in the end result, both ships free in exchange for one another or part of a larger exchange, could be quick or take some time. What it does however show above and beyond letting the Grace 1 element run its course is that Iran will retaliate.

Evidently you have a different take, so feel free to share what you think the strategy of the government will be. You mentioned:

I’d hope that the UK sticks to the same line re: the release of the Grace 1 that it had before this Iranian action.

But how do you think we will get the Impero released?

 

[Jokester]

Possibly, I personally think the reason is leverage. They have something we want, now they have something we want, hence suggestion of the complex hostage exchange back in Apr 2019 by Iran’s foreign minister with respect to Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. BoJo's comments did not change anything. They held her for that long prior to BoJo's comments and would have done so until they had something they wanted, regardless of Johnson's comments. They are happy to build up ammunition (hostages and leverage) and use it in turn when they want something.

Will play out broadly similar here regardless of if there were British citizens on the tanker or not I expect, will likely be Grace 1 for Stena Impero

It will absolutely be used as leverage for a future deal. But, if you are going to engage in activities associated with regime change, it was a pretty stupid thing to then go to that country a few years later when the same regime is still in charge.

I don't believe we will release Grace 1 until it's agreed it won't sail to Syria - it will be returned to Iran only and there will now be a even closer eye on Iranian shipping to Syria. What Iran does with Stena Impero will largely be irrelevant in our response with Grace 1 and I agree with Dowie, I think Iran have made a mistake here by seizing a Swedish ship as it widens the dispute to the EU itself and the wider international community - not that it wasn't like that before when they bombed a couple of tankers. Iran has just dug a bigger hole for themselves and weakened their position overall.

 

[dowie]

I did not say or suggest anything in regards to obligations one way or another

I know, I did read your post thanks, I asked you a question that was all. My assertion is that we'd already indicated we were prepared to release the Grace 1 if given assurances re: Syria. You talked about an exchange thus the question of whether you think the UK will just ignore obligations to EU sanctions.

The point being that the ship could already be released ergo no need for an exchange in the first place! I mean do you think that if Iran doesn't want to give assurances re: Syria then it can simply offer to exchange in return for the Swedish vessel being released? It doesn't seem likely IMO, I'd suspect that the UK will simply maintain it's existing stance re: the vessel in Gibraltar.

But how do you think we will get the Impero released?

I don't know how we will get the Impero released (or if we will rather than say Sweden or the company concerned etc..), I've not made any claims there. My statement you quoted related to the ship seized in Gibraltar, not the Swedish owned vessel Iran is currently holding.

 

[Radox-0]

I know, I did read your post thanks.



I don't know how we will get the Impero released (or if we will rather than say Sweden or the company concerned etc..), I've not made any claims there. My statement you quoted related to the ship seized in Gibraltar, not the Swedish owned vessel Iran is currently holding.

Good, hope things are cleared up then.

Well fair enough. I thought you may have a opinion on Impero hence use of the work "But how", fair enough if you don't. Its all postulating and opinions in that regards.

 

[Radox-0]

It will absolutely be used as leverage for a future deal. But, if you are going to engage in activities associated with regime change, it was a pretty stupid thing to then go to that country a few years later when the same regime is still in charge.

I don't believe we will release Grace 1 until it's agreed it won't sail to Syria - it will be returned to Iran only and there will now be a even closer eye on Iranian shipping to Syria. What Iran does with Stena Impero will largely be irrelevant in our response with Grace 1 and I agree with Dowie, I think Iran have made a mistake here by seizing a Swedish ship as it widens the dispute to the EU itself and the wider international community - not that it wasn't like that before when they bombed a couple of tankers. Iran has just dug a bigger hole for themselves and weakened their position overall.

In regards to the Grace 1 release as per my own post # 1053:

I fully expect it will be framed as if assurances were given Grace 1 will not go to Syria which they were willing to do anyways to de-escalate prior to this incident, so obligations in check and faced save, while Iran will look to release the Stena Impero.

We keep saying Swedish owned, which it is, yet by all accounts being British flagged means we are taking responsibility, though I appreciate you may not share the same sentiment. Reasons why I believe this Sweden even in their news I have seen refer to it as a British tanker: https://www.swedennews.net/news/261...na-impero-now-under-control-of-iranian-forces 0 mention on Swedish government news site: https://www.government.se/press/ (and they do publish on weekends looking at past weekends). There foreign minister has made no comments and likewise the only recent information or reference I have seen in regard to the Swedish Prime Minster is communication with donald trump in regards to the rapper A$AP Rocky's yesterday: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ter-warns-donald-trump-cannot-influence-asap/

The UK is the one submitting the letters to UNSC, messages from other EU nations referring to it as a British tanker,

France's Foreign Ministry said it "strongly condemned" the seizure and expressed its "full solidarity with the United Kingdom," according to the Reuters news agency.

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-and-france-condemn-irans-seizure-of-british-tanker/a-49665532 and so on. The international community will not do anything further with the exception of the US. I would not expect anything from the EU who seem to call on deescalation https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters...seizure-two-ships-iranian-authorities-gulf_en

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

The seizure of two ships by Iranian authorities in the Strait of Hormuz is of deep concern. In an already tense situation, this development brings risks of further escalation and undermines ongoing work to find a way to resolve current tensions.

We urge the immediate release of the remaining ship and its crew, and call for restraint to avoid further tensions. Freedom of navigation must be respected at all times.

Anyways all moot as no one knows how this is going to proceed, it will be interesting, but until then, guess work and opinions from all sides.