• 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

Give up nukes. Permanently.

Someone told N. Korea that quite a few times. Then there's a little thing that N. Korea actually has nukes, Iran does not.
 
Give up nukes. Permanently.

They did it with the previous Obama agreement. And by the way, it makes no sense to demand actions today based on the speculation that the Iranians would not have kept the agreement.
 
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.

So when the UK seizes and Iranian ship it is ok when Iran seizes an UK ship it is lawlessness?

Exactly.

This is perfectly fair in light of recent seizures of Iranian ships; mere reciprocity. However odious Iran may be, UK called the thunder, set the precedent, and is now reaping the whirlwind.
 
Correct.

The UK is a democracy engaging in legal sanction against Syria. Iran is aware of the sanction. Iran nonetheless sent a tanker, secretly and flying a false (not convenient) flag to Syria. It was an act of deception and fully aware of the consequences should they be discovered.

Iran is a backwards theocracy without legitimate claim to the tanker.


Details, details... I know, but they matter.

I wasn't aware sanctions against Syria gave the UK just authority to seize Iranian tankers; or immunity from the repercussions of doing so.
 
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?

I think the theory is that they quit doing bad things, and get the sanctions lifted.
 
I think the theory is that they quit doing bad things, and get the sanctions lifted.

Sadly, you have bought the bull again. Iran was in compliance all along, and there is proof of that by the inspections conducted by the International Atomic Energy Commission. This is all of Trump's making and only to undo something good that Barack Obama accomplished.
 
It's Trump's fault.

Damn right it is. This wouldn't be happening at all if that jealous Islamophobic a-hole hadn't unilaterally rescinded the agreement with Iran and reimposed sanctions for no good reason.
 
Via EU EEZ.

Nope, and I explained why

EEZ does not give full sovereignty over the surface waters and does not cover straights and narrow bodies of sea waters.

You can see it also from the opposite side: if you think that EU EEZ gives the right to EU countries to control free shipping in the Mediterranean Sea, then the Iranian EEZ gives it the right to control free shipping in the Straights of Hormuz and in the Persian Gulf waters

Strait of Hormuz - Wikipedia

The strait is about 90 nautical miles (167 km) long, with a width varying from about 52 nautical miles (96 km) to 21 nautical miles (39 km).[2][3]
 
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

Yes. So what? Latakia is in Syria.
 
Sadly, you have bought the bull again. Iran was in compliance all along, and there is proof of that by the inspections conducted by the International Atomic Energy Commission. This is all of Trump's making and only to undo something good that Barack Obama accomplished.

Talk about buying a line! On the nuclear front - sure they were in compliance, with a weak deal, at least as long as it was convenient. And on the non-nuclear front, of course, now they are shooting down drones and pirating ships in international waters.
 
Nope, and I explained why

EEZ does not give full sovereignty over the surface waters and does not cover straights and narrow bodies of sea waters.

You can see it also from the opposite side: if you think that EU EEZ gives the right to EU countries to control free shipping in the Mediterranean Sea, then the Iranian EEZ gives it the right to control free shipping in the Straights of Hormuz and in the Persian Gulf waters

Strait of Hormuz - Wikipedia

The strait is about 90 nautical miles (167 km) long, with a width varying from about 52 nautical miles (96 km) to 21 nautical miles (39 km).[2][3]

Legal jurisdiction. UK broke no law.
 
Yes. So what? Latakia is in Syria.

That's my point.

It can have a flag saying "I am going to Latakia in Syria" and can still sail through the Dardanelle straights unmolested according to the intnernational maritime treaties. But if the Russian ship tries to dock in a Turkish port for whatever reason (say mechanical failure) then it can be seized by Turkey as long as Turkey participates in the Syrian oil embargo.
 
That's my point.

It can have a flag saying "I am going to Latakia in Syria" and can still sail through the Dardanelle straights unmolested according to the intnernational maritime treaties.

Yes. And . . . ?
 
Legal jurisdiction. UK broke no law.

There is no full legal jurisdiction over surface waters (and may be no legal jurisdiction at all, depending on the case).

Again

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. The surface waters, as can be seen in the map, are international waters.[2]

By your logic, Iran also did not break any law since it seized ships within its EEZ
 
Last edited:
Talk about buying a line! On the nuclear front - sure they were in compliance, with a weak deal, at least as long as it was convenient. And on the non-nuclear front, of course, now they are shooting down drones and pirating ships in international waters.

The drone was in Iran's air space. And yes, Iran is going to behave erratically now, that's why Barack Obama and John Kerry orchestrated an unbelievable feat, a nuclear deal that was agreed upon by the US, Iran and the P5 +1, the UN Security Council's top five members.
 
Yes. And . . . ?

Then I think we agreed in the answering of the question I asked

.. 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?

The answer is "no," correct?
 
The neocons are back and they want war with Iran. Would be good for their bottom line.

Phys251:

Unfortunately they are back in both the USA and Iran and that is why such escalation is happening now.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
The drone was in Iran's air space.

International air space, in the Strait of Hormuz.

And yes, Iran is going to behave erratically now, that's why Barack Obama and John Kerry orchestrated an unbelievable feat, a nuclear deal that was agreed upon by the US, Iran and the P5 +1, the UN Security Council's top five members.

You can only polish that turd so much.
 
Then I think we agreed in the answering of the question I asked

.. 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?

The answer is "no," correct?

I don't know maritime law well enough to take a position.
 
There is no full legal jurisdiction over surface waters (and may be no legal jurisdiction at all, depending on the case).

Again

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. The surface waters, as can be seen in the map, are international waters.[2]

By your logic, Iran also did not break any law since it seized ships within its EEZ

My mistake.

The contiguous zone is a band of water extending farther from the outer edge of the territorial sea to up to 24 nautical miles (44.4 km; 27.6 mi) from the baseline, within which a state can exert limited control for the purpose of preventing or punishing "infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea".
Territorial waters - Wikipedia
 
Via EU EEZ.

Ecofarm:

Here is a map of UK Exclusive Economic Zones. Do you see a blue dot anywhere near Gibraltar?

image.jpg

EU sanctions only apply to EU member states and Iran is not an EU member state. The EU sanctions explicitly reject extraterritorial jurisdiction.

The ship was very likely seized outside of Gibraltar's limited territorial waters and there is no EEZ, so your case is very likely baseless.

Never mind. I just saw your last post.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
International air space, in the Strait of Hormuz.



You can only polish that turd so much.

Yes that's true except it was not in international air space, it was in Iran's air space. You can only apologize for that turd to a point.
 
My mistake. Contiguous Zone. But that would be Gibraltar's eez.


Territorial waters - Wikipedia

Ecofarm:

Gibraltar's territorial waters extend only 3.0 nautical miles from Gibraltar. The sh was likely seized south of that limit by the RMC and thus the UK had no jurisdiction as well as no legal basis to seize it.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Back
Top Bottom