• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran claims to have seized British oil tanker in strait of Hormuz

apdst said:
They hated us, anyway. There's no way we could ally ourselves with Israel and still be loved in the ME. That just wasn't going to happen. It's time you all accept that reality.
Click to expand...

This is unknowable, since we eliminated that possibility by actively making them our enemies.

Iran was amongst the most western-friendly of the ME states, before we started jerking them around.
 
ecofarm said:
The tanker could not traverse legally or it would have. The place of acquisition was in EU waters, requested by Gibraltar. That might be disputed, but the important thing to realize is that the tanker could not, if allowed to proceed, arrive at its destination without traversing EU waters.

The tanker also flew a false flag. Not a flag of convenience; a false flag.

Those are both violations of international law.
Click to expand...

I am not sure what you try to say...

I do not know why you think that the flag the ship carried was "false flag." A country uses a "false flag" operation to pin a certain action on another country. In this case, I do not see the advantage the Iranians could gain by choosing this particular "false flag." If the idea was that they wanted to cover the true ownership of the ship. they could have done it equally effective by using any convenient flag.

Also, I do not know why you think that the ship could not reach its destination without sailing EU waters. I do not know all the details of international maritime laws but from what I know from the Greco-Turkish dispute of waters in the Aegean, the standard rule for determining national waters is based on an area with radius 12 miles from the coast line. And even this rule has many exceptions because the idea is that regardless of geography, every country should be able to have access to shipping instead of depending on the good will of foreign countries whose national waters may block such access. So in some cases the radius is even less than 12 miles to make sure that there are international waters to guarantee free shipping. The same idea of free shipping is what guarantees the crossing of narrow straights in Gibraltar, Suez, or Dardanelles even though the waters are within a few meters from a nation's "coastline."
 
WillyPete said:
This is unknowable, since we eliminated that possibility by actively making them our enemies.

Iran was amongst the most western-friendly of the ME states, before we started jerking them around.
Click to expand...

So, the Russian/British invasion didn't phase them?
 
apdst said:
He also doesn't pay ransoms to enemy nations, neither.
Click to expand...

You'd know better if you cared to.

It wasn't a ransom, but frozen Iranians funds, and we used them as a bargaining chip.

There's a debate to be had whether it was used effectively, but we'll never know that either since Trump torpedoed the deal, so now that money was truly wasted.

Also, paying ransom is a tradition as old as the nation. Check out the stories of Cap'n Billy Bainbridge, if you aren't familiar. They really did a number on him.
 
WillyPete said:
You'd know better if you cared to.

It wasn't a ransom, but frozen Iranians funds, and we used them as a bargaining chip.

There's a debate to be had whether it was used effectively, but we'll never know that either since Trump torpedoed the deal, so now that money was truly wasted.

Also, paying ransom is a tradition as old as the nation. Check out the stories of Cap'n Billy Bainbridge, if you aren't familiar. They really did a number on him.
Click to expand...

It was ransom and he broke the law doing it.
 
pamak said:
I am not sure what you try to say...

I do not know why you think that the flag the ship carried was "false flag." A country uses a "false flag" operation to pin a certain action on another country. In this case, I do not see the advantage the Iranians could gain by choosing this particular "false flag." If the idea was that they wanted to cover the true ownership of the ship. they could have done it equally effective by using any convenient flag.
Click to expand...

They tried to pin it on Venezuela, perhaps also as an explanation for coming from the Atlantic. It was not a flag of convenience, it was an attempt to deceive. Such deception is a violation of international law.

Also, I do not know why you think that the ship could not reach its destination without sailing EU waters. I do not know all the details of international maritime laws but from what I know from the Greco-Turkish dispute of waters in the Aegean, the standard rule for determining national waters is based on an area with radius 12 miles from the coast line. And even this rule has many exceptions because the idea is that regardless of geography, every country should be able to have access to shipping instead of depending on the good will of foreign countries whose national waters may block such access. So in some cases the radius is even less than 12 miles to make sure that there are international waters to guarantee free shipping. The same idea of free shipping is what guarantees the crossing of narrow straights in Gibraltar, Suez, or Dardanelles even though the waters are within a few meters from a nation's "coastline."
Click to expand...

Territorial is 12.

Exclusive economic zone - Wikipedia
 
braindrain said:
So you have nothing. you could have just described that from the beginning. It would have saved you some embarrassment
Click to expand...

Get some history books; ignorance is not a good look, especially if you are standing on the wall.
 
Felis Leo said:
Nothing to see here, folks. The regime is becoming more moderate. Move it along.

In all seriousness, the Iranian Revolutionary regime is one that has engaged in lawlessness, mendacity and terror. The Western Governments were engaged in self-delusion thinking that their playing a shell game of putting some anodyne Santa Claus-like figure as Rouhani signaled some major institutional shift in policy. It was simply playing Good Cop Bad Cop.
Click to expand...

We had a deal that Iran was complying with and Trump comes along and says it was a bad deal although he gave no information on why other than Iran getting their money back which was part of the deal. He has totally blown this up and why? Was it just because Obama made the deal along with other nations? This is not looking good right now or for the future.
 
ecofarm said:
They tried to pin it on Venezuela, perhaps also as an explanation for coming from the Atlantic. It was not a flag of convenience, it was an attempt to deceive. Such deception is a violation of international law.



Territorial is 12.

Exclusive economic zone - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

But what is the benefit from the Iranian point of view of masking a ship with a Venezuela flag when in fact Venezuela is not in good terms with many countries (including the US) instead of using a flag of convenience from Bolivia?

Territorial is not always 12 as I explained.

The Aegean is one such place where there is right now a 6 mile range of territorial waters and there is a dispute regarding the actual determination of such waters.

Aegean dispute - Wikipedia
 
pamak said:
But what is the benefit from the Iranian point of view of masking a ship with a Venezuela flag when in fact Venezuela is not in good terms with many countries (including the US) instead of using a flag of convenience from Bolivia?
Click to expand...

1. Masks the shipment so as to permit the illegal supply of fuel to Syria.
2. Explains the ship coming from the Atlantic instead of having used the Canal.
3. ?
4. Profit


Territorial is not always 12 as I explained.

The Aegean is one such place where there is right now a 6 mile range of territorial waters and there is a dispute regarding the actual determination of such waters.

Aegean dispute - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Exclusive Economic Zone isn't always 240 or whatever, depends on borders and such. Within it, that country sets rules and has rights to resources.
 
Carleen said:
We had a deal that Iran was complying with and Trump comes along and says it was a bad deal although he gave no information on why other than Iran getting their money back which was part of the deal. He has totally blown this up and why? Was it just because Obama made the deal along with other nations? This is not looking good right now or for the future.
Click to expand...

But what does that have to do with the seizing British oil tankers and their crews?

Again, Iran's regime is a lawless, mendacious regime of terror. One that cannot be trusted as far as thrown and has not moderated one iota any more than the North Korean regime has. It was the height of stupidity and irresponsibility for the Obama administration to make such a deal with them (and a terrible one at that), just as much as it was the height of stupidity and irresponsibility for Donald Trump to constantly reach out to the North Korean regime. Neither regime has any interest in "moderating." Because the minute they do, they will have abdicated their power and will be subject to the righteous vengeance of a population which they have despoiled for so long.

Further, as we can see, the Iranians would have been able to develop fissile material immediately at the end of the ten year period as they are now. Their staying their hand in exchange for reintegration into the international trade and monetary system was a fool's bargain for us, in that it strengthens the Iranian regime, allowing them to gain regional hegemony in exchange for simply waiting to create a nuclear bomb for ten years.
 
ecofarm said:
1. Masks the shipment so as to permit the illegal supply of fuel to Syria.
2. Explains the ship coming from the Atlantic instead of having used the Canal.
3. ?
4. Profit




Exclusive Economic Zone isn't always 240 or whatever, depends on borders and such. Within it, that country sets rules and has rights to resources.
Click to expand...

How is it illegal for Iran to supply oil to Syria under international law?
 
ecofarm said:
1. Masks the shipment so as to permit the illegal supply of fuel to Syria.
2. Explains the ship coming from the Atlantic instead of having used the Canal.
3. ?
4. Profit




Exclusive Economic Zone isn't always 240 or whatever, depends on borders and such. Within it, that country sets rules and has rights to resources.
Click to expand...

Iranians could do most of the the above much more effectively with a Bolivian flag of convenience. I do not know about the "profit" part, and it may very well be a reason for the choice of the Venezuelan flag, but such objective is not illegal.


As for the Exclusive economic zone, that is a different issue. This is more about the rights to exploit the resources at the bottom of the sea (often oil) than about free navigation. See link

Exclusive economic zone - Wikipedia


The difference between the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone is that the first confers full sovereignty over the waters, whereas the second is merely a "sovereign right" which refers to the coastal state's rights below the surface of the sea.

An exclusive economic zone will still have international waters for free passage.
 
pamak said:
Did Russia let a UN oil embargo?
Click to expand...

[FONT=&quot]. . . The head of the Syrian Economic Task Force, Osama Kadi, said in an exclusive interview with Iqtissad that, “the suffocating embargo on the Assad regime is designed to embarrass Iran and force the regime to abandon such a weak ally, which will not be able to deliver oil for its ally.” [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Russia’s Approval [/FONT][FONT=&quot]In his analysis, Kadi asserts that the embargo is approved by Russia, in order to deliver a clear message to Iran that Russia is the only strong ally and the one in command in Syria, and that the embarrassment of the regime, in front its loyalists, is preparation for the replacement of the head of the regime by Russia. . . . [/FONT]
Is the Oil Embargo Pushing Assad Towards a Political Solution? - The ...


Page not found - The Syrian Observer...



Apr 25, 2019 - The fuel crisis in Syria, could be used as an opportunity to push the ... “the suffocating embargo on the Assad regime is designed to embarrass ...
 
Jack Hays said:
[FONT="]. . . The head of the Syrian Economic Task Force, Osama Kadi, said in an exclusive interview with Iqtissad that, “the suffocating embargo on the Assad regime is designed to embarrass Iran and force the regime to abandon such a weak ally, which will not be able to deliver oil for its ally.” [/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#666666][FONT="]Russia’s Approval [/FONT][FONT="]In his analysis, Kadi asserts that the embargo is approved by Russia, in order to deliver a clear message to Iran that Russia is the only strong ally and the one in command in Syria, and that the embarrassment of the regime, in front its loyalists, is preparation for the replacement of the head of the regime by Russia. . . . [/FONT][/COLOR]
[FONT=arial][URL="https://syrianobserver.com/EN/features/50004/is-the-oil-embargo-pushing-assad-towards-a-political-solution.html"]Is the Oil Embargo Pushing Assad Towards a Political Solution? - The ...


[/URL]Page not found - The Syrian Observer...


[/FONT]
Apr 25, 2019 - The fuel crisis in Syria, could be used as an opportunity to push the ... “the suffocating embargo on the Assad regime is designed to embarrass ...
Click to expand...


That's a statement of somebody's analysis regarding Russia's polices which of course can change over time. We all know that Russia is helping Assad. So, say tomorrow a Russian oil tanker leaves Crimea and sails towards Syria: Is there any authority to capture this ship as it crosses the Dardanelles straights?
 
pamak said:
That's a statement of somebody's analysis regarding Russia's polices which of course can change over time. We all know that Russia is helping Assad. So, say tomorrow a Russian oil tanker leaves Crimea and sails towards Syria: Is there any authority to capture this ship as it crosses the Dardanelles straights?
Click to expand...

If it tries to dock in Latakia.
 
Jack Hays said:
If it tries to dock in Latakia.
Click to expand...

IF it tries to dock in a port in Turkey or in another country that participates in the Syrian oil embargo yes (in theory at least)!

But if it just sails the Dardanelles straights, the tanker is considered to be in international waters even though it may be a few hundred meters away from Turkey land
 
Rexedgar said:
We are presently unable to contact the vessel which is now heading north towards Iran, the owners, Stena Bulk, and the ship s managers, Northern Marine, said in the statement.- link

Iran claims to have seized British oil tanker in strait of Hormuz | World news | The Guardian


Just another Friday!
Click to expand...

Exactly, what else would anyone expect of Iran? Their backs are against the wall, they're sanctioned to death and their economy is being strangled. What are they supposed to do, sit back and let everyone in Iran starve to death?
 
HumblePi said:
Exactly, what else would anyone expect of Iran? Their backs are against the wall, they're sanctioned to death and their economy is being strangled. What are they supposed to do, sit back and let everyone in Iran starve to death?
Click to expand...

Give up nukes. Permanently.
 
HumblePi said:
Exactly, what else would anyone expect of Iran? Their backs are against the wall, they're sanctioned to death and their economy is being strangled. What are they supposed to do, sit back and let everyone in Iran starve to death?
Click to expand...

Yeah, those poor, poor Iranians
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom