• 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!

Tehran fumes as Britain seizes Iranian oil tanker over Syria sanctions

Oil Tanker Bombed Near Persian Gulf Is Shipping Fuel to Iran

62001777_371484390150763_5740717102457683968_n.jpg


The Andrea Victory oil-tanker vessel which was attacked off the coast of the United Arab Emirates in May apparently received a ship-to-ship cargo transfer at sea near the UAE port of Fujairah earlier this month. She is now full and has requested permission to dock at an Iranian oil-receiving port. Ergo - the ship is violating US sanctions against importing/exporting oil to/from Iran.
 
PeteEU said:
Again bull****.

UK has two sovereign military bases right next to Syria on Cyprus.

And I don't care what that moron said in Gibraltar, he does not have that authority to ask for any assistance to board a ship in disputed waters based on sanctions 1000+ km away. Gibraltar is a colony and all its foreign and military affairs is run from London. He was ordered to so called request assistance because the British government needs a scapegoat.

Sent from my Honor 8X using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

They are RAF and army bases on Cyprus, Gibraltar has the port and the Navy.
 
Chagos said:
5) EU states can enforce the sanctions on Syria any place they see fit, i.e. any place they can apprehend someone potentially in breach.

6) The accusation of high seas piracy is absurd.
Click to expand...
Really? So you are suggesting that if country A imposes sanctions on country B, then country A has the "right" to seize the assets of country B( any place they can apprehend someone potentially in breach)?

What if country B responds in kind?

What if Iran imposes sanctions against the EU and US? Does it have the right to seize any ships it finds that export goods to the EU or the US? Now imagine that Russia and/or China start doing that...
 
Nilhus said:
Really? So you are suggesting that if country A imposes sanctions on country B, then country A has the "right" to seize the assets of country B( any place they can apprehend someone potentially in breach)?
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about "rights", I'm talking about capability.

What if country B responds in kind?

What if Iran imposes sanctions against the EU and US? Does it have the right to seize any ships it finds that export goods to the EU or the US?
Click to expand...
See above.
Now imagine that Russia and/or China start doing that...
Click to expand...
Russia and China have no control over the Gib Strait.
 
Chagos said:
I'm not talking about "rights", I'm talking about capability.

See above.Russia and China have no control over the Gib Strait.
Click to expand...
Nor does the UK.

Sent from my Honor 8X using Tapatalk
 
Chagos said:
I'm not talking about "rights", I'm talking about capability.
Click to expand...
OK, I understand that... military power = legitimacy in whatever you're doing

Chagos said:
See above.Russia and China have no control over the Gib Strait.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid you are wrong about this one. The UK has zero legitimacy over Gibraltar compared to China or Russia, as their military is inferior. They should be booted out soon.
 
Nilhus said:
I'm afraid you are wrong about this one. The UK has zero legitimacy over Gibraltar compared to China or Russia, as their military is inferior. They should be booted out soon.
Click to expand...

Article X of The Treaty of Utrecht.
 
Nilhus said:
OK, I understand that... military power = legitimacy in whatever you're doing
Click to expand...
I wasn't talking about legitimacy either.

I'm afraid you are wrong about this one. The UK has zero legitimacy over Gibraltar compared to China or Russia, as their military is inferior. They should be booted out soon.
Click to expand...
don't hold your breath.
 
Chagos said:
so the tanker was apprehended by phantoms, eh?
Click to expand...
No, it was taken by a bunch of special ops shipped in from the UK and most likely in international waters. It was and is an act of state sponsered piracy. It was a ship with NO links to the EU or US, flying a neutral flag that the British hijacked.

The UK does not own or control the Straits of Gibraltar period.

What the UK has done on behalf of Trumps America, is basically opened up Pandoras box. Iran, Russia and anyone can now legitimately seize any ship they want anywhere in the world as long as they can claim sanctions or another faux legal reason for doing so. This is a problem no? And let me guess "let them try and will sink thier ships" attitude...well that only means that international shipping will now have to go in convoys protected by military vessels... Is that what you want? And all because of a few Neo Cons pulling Trumps strings...

Sent from my Honor 8X using Tapatalk
 
PeteEU said:
No, it was taken by a bunch of special ops shipped in from the UK and most likely in international waters. It was and is an act of state sponsered piracy. It was a ship with NO links to the EU or US, flying a neutral flag that the British hijacked.

The UK does not own or control the Straits of Gibraltar period.

What the UK has done on behalf of Trumps America, is basically opened up Pandoras box. Iran, Russia and anyone can now legitimately seize any ship they want anywhere in the world as long as they can claim sanctions or another faux legal reason for doing so. This is a problem no? And let me guess "let them try and will sink thier ships" attitude...well that only means that international shipping will now have to go in convoys protected by military vessels... Is that what you want? And all because of a few Neo Cons pulling Trumps strings...

Sent from my Honor 8X using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I've actually never passed any verdict on the prudence of the move, just explained the considerations that drove it.

As to any supplier and consignee (let alone their ships) having no links to the EU, that does not serve to circumvent any sanctions on either the supplier or the consignee, if either or both are subject to sanctions (import and/or export) that the EU has imposed on either or both.

Fun fact, incidentally, being that instrumentalizing of such sanctions in form and design are left up to the individual EU member states.
 
Chagos said:
I've actually never passed any verdict on the prudence of the move, just explained the considerations that drove it.

As to any supplier and consignee (let alone their ships) having no links to the EU, that does not serve to circumvent any sanctions on either the supplier or the consignee, if either or both are subject to sanctions (import and/or export) that the EU has imposed on either or both.

Fun fact, incidentally, being that instrumentalizing of such sanctions in form and design are left up to the individual EU member states.
Click to expand...

All Iran has to do is place sanctions on the UK regarding oil shipments and it will be entitled to seize any ship that might be shipping petrochemical products to the UK.

A great move UK
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
All Iran has to do is place sanctions on the UK regarding oil shipments and it will be entitled to seize any ship that might be shipping petrochemical products to the UK.

A great move UK
Click to expand...
To the best of my knowledge the UK does not import either petroleum or petrochemicals from Iran.

The nearest country (geographically speaking) from which it imports either and where Iran could interfere, being Saudi.

Negligible quantities in both fields when compared to its overall imports.

As for the Iranian navy interfering with ANY shipments on the high seas, it's hardly geared for that.

Just saying.
 
Chagos said:
To the best of my knowledge the UK does not import either petroleum or petrochemicals from Iran.

The nearest country (geographically speaking) from which it imports either and where Iran could interfere, being Saudi.

Negligible quantities in both fields when compared to its overall imports.

As for the Iranian navy interfering with ANY shipments on the high seas, it's hardly geared for that.

Just saying.
Click to expand...

It does not, but it does from countries in the Persian Gulf

Royal Navy Frigate Escorts U.K. Tanker Out Of The Persian Gulf After Iranian Threats - The Drive

OEC

- United Kingdom (GBR) Exports, Imports, and Trade Partners


Meaning the UK, and or UK flagged or owned ships do pass through the Straights of Hormuz and could be seized by Iran fairly easily
 
PeteEU said:
It seems that the Brits acted on a request from the Americans according to the Spanish, which does not help the situation.

And again, seizing it so far from Syria and in contested waters is idiotic. It could be going anywhere and now we will never know..

It looks more and more like another attempt to drive a wedge between Europe and the US and we both know who that benefits and why the US would ask the UK to do the dirty work...work that the US could easily do themselves.

Sent from my Honor 8X using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Spain is in Europe but Spain is not Europe. UK acted as a sovereign nation and so did Spain in filing an objection. Nato will not get involved. EU is likely to sit tight. Iran is meanwhile driving Europe away as it continues to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. Iran is behind the 8 ball in this if your don't know. Iranian people might be practical yet their leaders are idiots who've learned nothing from their long history of defeat.






PeteEU said:
Fraudulent flag? Make **** up now?

And yes If the ship was heading to break sanctions thenyes it should be stopped. BUT we will never know since the ship was no where near Syria...

Sent from my Honor 8X using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The ship has a manifest and it has a destination.





Frigidweirdo said:
Theft and people are cheering about it.

Support for Assad? I mean, he's not a nice guy, but the US would have supported him had it been in their interests. The US does support the Saudis.
Click to expand...

US supports UK.






PeteEU said:
No, it was taken by a bunch of special ops shipped in from the UK and most likely in international waters. It was and is an act of state sponsered piracy. It was a ship with NO links to the EU or US, flying a neutral flag that the British hijacked.

The UK does not own or control the Straits of Gibraltar period.

What the UK has done on behalf of Trumps America, is basically opened up Pandoras box. Iran, Russia and anyone can now legitimately seize any ship they want anywhere in the world as long as they can claim sanctions or another faux legal reason for doing so. This is a problem no? And let me guess "let them try and will sink thier ships" attitude...well that only means that international shipping will now have to go in convoys protected by military vessels... Is that what you want? And all because of a few Neo Cons pulling Trumps strings...

Sent from my Honor 8X using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Your anti Americanism is bordering on hysteria. That's because it goes beyond Trump. Fact is it preceded Trump.
 
PeteEU said:
Fraudulent flag? Make **** up now?

And yes If the ship was heading to break sanctions thenyes it should be stopped. BUT we will never know since the ship was no where near Syria...

Sent from my Honor 8X using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Panamanian flag on an Iranian ship, and Panama says it ain't theirs.
 
Some are trying here to hijack/confuse the topic with a false narrative. The sanctions acted on here are not sanctions applied to Iran, but US/UK/EU sanctions applied to the Assad regime of Syria. These sanctions are applied in relation to Assad government war crimes, massive human rights violations, trafficking-in-persons, and using weapons of mass destruction (CW). It is impossible to obtain UN sanctions against the Assad regime due to Russia and China SC vetoes.

The Grace 1 was removed from the Panamanian maritime flag registry on May 29. The Grace 1 left the Persian Gulf loaded (STS) with Iranian crude and then avoided the Suez Canal to reach the Mediterranean because its cargo (fuel oil) would have been off-loaded at one end and re-loaded after canal transit, thus revealing the content and tonnage of its cargo. In addition, the ship's manifest - previous port(s)/next destination(s) would also have been examined and checked. The Grace 1 held false cargo papers identifying Iraq as the country of cargo origin. Grace 1 has a history of handling STS (Ship-to-Ship) fuel oil transfers. Loaded, she typically then transfers her cargo to smaller ships (Suezmax, Aframax, etc.) to avoid being boarded and impounded (this occurred on 4 July). She is now anchored off the coast of Gibraltar and ~22.5 meters deep in the water which implies a cargo of 2 million bbl of fuel oil rather than crude oil (which is lighter). These tankers automatically broadcast a data packet every four hours with GMT, longitude, latitude, speed, course, heading, turn, source, data. Grace 1 Owner and Mgmt. - Russian Titan Ship Lines, Abu Dubai, UAE.
 
Tangmo said:
Spain is in Europe but Spain is not Europe. UK acted as a sovereign nation and so did Spain in filing an objection. Nato will not get involved. EU is likely to sit tight. Iran is meanwhile driving Europe away as it continues to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. Iran is behind the 8 ball in this if your don't know. Iranian people might be practical yet their leaders are idiots who've learned nothing from their long history of defeat.
Click to expand...

And you of course have no problem with Israel having nukes right? This has nothing to do with Iran and its nuclear program. It has to do with the ability of any nation to sail around the world, without fearing the US and its puppets hijack their goods.

The ship has a manifest and it has a destination.
Click to expand...

Yes so says the Brits and Americans. The Iranians and others say different.. funny how that is eh? You do know that the supposed place this tanker was going, does not have the ability to host such a big ship? It is piracy. No way in hell did this ship go into UK waters, and hence it was in international waters which means it is piracy. Iran is not bound by UK or US sanctions against Syria.

US supports UK.
Click to expand...

Bull****.. the US is using the UK as a puppet as usual.

Your anti Americanism is bordering on hysteria. That's because it goes beyond Trump. Fact is it preceded Trump.
Click to expand...

You are telling me, that a 2 bit criminal governor of a British colony has more info and ability to on "take sanction breakers", than his mother country and the US with the biggest navy on the planet? You seriously believe that the UK did this out of the blue without any push from anyone?
 
Rogue Valley said:
Some are trying here to hijack/confuse the topic with a false narrative. The sanctions acted on here are not sanctions applied to Iran, but US/UK/EU sanctions applied to the Assad regime of Syria. ....................~
Click to expand...
Yeah, high time this was cleared up.
 
The US Navy is not escorting tankers in the Persian Gulf, but has stationed warships at choke points where an Iranian attack/boarding would be most likely.

I don't know how many of you have ever seen a US Navy MK-38 auto-cannon at work, but a four shot volley will hit a small moving boat 2 miles away in a hair over 3 seconds.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Everyone understands that

The question is the right to enforce it against a third party
Click to expand...
are you seriously suggesting that the EU afford right of passage thru any of its territories to anyone transporting cargo that breaches an embargo the EU has imposed on the country of destination (of that cargo)?

What next, a cavalcade of tanker lorries should be allowed to pass from Russia thru Poland, then on to Greece, then Turkey and from there to Syria, all on account of neither the owner of the lorries nor the producer of the cargo being a EU member?

One can argue that the tanker didn't touch British waters (as of the Rock) but the Strait is not as unequivocally High Seas as the mid-Atlantic or mid-Pacific anyway. By claims alone it is equally divided between Spain, Morocco and Gib and where Spain will always deny the British claim, let me assure you that beyond that token protest I'm not hearing much noise from Madrid here.

And I live in the country.

As to the free transit issue in the Straits, see previous posts here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom