• 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

Chagos said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is an international water way like the straights of Hormuz so yes it can
 
Chagos said:
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?
Click to expand...

It's a bit like the erroneous notion that RT has some universal right to broadcast disinformation wherever it pleases.

Rogue states and adversarial nations are somehow mysteriously immune from consequences in this new alt universe.
 
Rogue Valley said:
It's a bit like the erroneous notion that RT has some universal right to broadcast disinformation wherever it pleases.

Rogue states and adversarial nations are somehow mysteriously immune from consequences in this new alt universe.
Click to expand...
By some (Spanish) accounts Grace 1 was set for re-provisioning from The Rock but due to her size could not enter the port. So she slowed down in Gibraltar waters to take provisions from small boats.

4 km South of the Rock which would have put her within the 5.6 km that Gib claims as its territorial waters.

It isn't uncommon for ships to re-supply there en passage, seeing how Gib is one of the leading maritime service hubs in Western Europe, with the Spanish mainland supplying no such services in the immediate vicinity.

I'm still not inclined to support the prudence of the seizure move, but the accusations of high seas piracy remain pretty stupid.
 
PeteEU said:
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.



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.



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



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?
Click to expand...

Is Israel a signatory of the deproliferation treaty?
 
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. 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.
Click to expand...

Rogue Valley:

The Syrian sanctions and embargo mean nothing to the legality of UK action in the Straits of Gibraltar.

Read the EU sanctions document which I posted earlier in this thread. The EU Sanctions and Embargo against Syria only apply to EU member countries and by EU law cannot be imposed on non-EU states. Iran is not an EU member state. As the UK is still a part of the EU it is still bound by that EU law and thus seized the Iranian tanker illegally. It did so in an international waterway and thus is breach of international law as well. This does amount to state piracy.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
Rogue Valley:

The Syrian sanctions and embargo mean nothing to the legality of UK action in the Straits of Gibraltar.

Read the EU sanctions document which I posted earlier in this thread. The EU Sanctions and Embargo against Syria only apply to EU member countries and by EU law cannot be imposed on non-EU states. Iran is not an EU member state. As the UK is still a part of the EU it is still bound by that EU law and thus seized the Iranian tanker illegally. It did so in an international waterway and thus is breach of international law as well. This does amount to state piracy.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Although she carries Iranian fuel oil, this is not an "Iranian" tanker.

The Grace 1 was not flagged (removed from the Panamanian Maritime Registry on May 29).
 
Rogue Valley said:
Although she carries Iranian fuel oil, this is not an "Iranian" tanker.

The Grace 1 was not flagged (removed from the Panamanian Maritime Registry on May 29).
Click to expand...
and unless both the Spanish and the Gibraltarians (Brits) are lying, she wasn't apprehended in international waters either.

I've already mentioned how passage of "contraband" can be countered by any state thru which such passage is attempted.

Somebody failing to establish a case here clearly also fails to see how constant repetition of arguments already refuted, cannot serve to address that ailing.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Although she carries Iranian fuel oil, this is not an "Iranian" tanker.

The Grace 1 was not flagged (removed from the Panamanian Maritime Registry on May 29).
Click to expand...

Rogue Valley:

That is just distraction.

Flagged =/= Ownership. This source provides the pertinent details and has a map showing the Grace I course prior to seizure. Only after seizure did she steer north-northeast into Gibralar's claimed waters. The page also indicates that tests conducted after seizure indicate she was carrying crude oil and not fuel oil as has been claimed.

https://tankertrackers.com/news/news/grace1-detained-gibraltar

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
PeteEU said:
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.
Click to expand...

While this has nothing to do with Israel it has everything to do with Tehran, Assad, Putin. Putin the Invader is lucky he doesn't get bombed out of Ukraine...and isolated in Crimea. The seizure is a dispute and you are lobbing verbal canon balls against the guys you don't like, namely UK and USA. Your putting the US in this is entirely notional. You don't have a single law of any sea or on any continent to place the US in the dispute. (See below)






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.
Click to expand...

Ships that don't fit don't necessarily have to dock to take on supplies but I thought you knew that or could figure it out.

Given you don't have a single law to tag the USA with, let's talk about Putin's violations of sovereignty in Ukraine --- and in the USA among other democracies in Europe --- and Assad's butchery in Syria. And the 'death to America' crowd of sophisticates in Iran. Plus the enriching of uranium in Iran. Let's include in our snapchats your verbal aggression against the United States. Neither do you speak for the EU in anything Pete much less this.





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

See above thx.




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?
Click to expand...

I said zilch about the governor of Gibraltar -- you're the guy who sees a "2 bit criminal governor" and innocence in Tehran, Damascus, Moscow. What I am noting is that you aren't citing any law(s) that say the governor is independent of UK. I can wait on that thx so take your time.

Moreover, "the US with the biggest navy on the planet" was quite occupied throughout it to include the Strait of Hormuz, the Gulf, the Arabian Sea and the Black Sea out across the Med to Spain itself. You know it's the USA when you see us because you can see the flag. This is in contrast to the tanker and you who fly a false one. So needless to say, we weren't there. You meanwhile are all over the place.
 
Tangmo said:
US supports UK.
Click to expand...

Really? Trump seems to think that he can piss all over the UK and they'll still be there, like a loyal dog kicked in the face.
 
As a noted shipping barrister states clearly, there is an EU Council Regulation and an Annex to it that enables the action taken by the government of Gibraltar and of the UK.

The regulation deals with "economic resources" that do of course include oil, since 2012. The Annex names names of places and people in Syria in particular, effective 2014. The barrister points out further that the 2012 regulation applies throughout the EU, to include "any ship under the jurisdiction of a member state."



The legality of the capture of Grace 1 depends on precisely what the vessel was carrying and the identity of the consignee, and a charterparty dispute is almost certain, according to leading shipping lawyers. As a British overseas territory, Gibraltar is largely self-governing, but matters of defence, security and foreign policy remain within the ultimate control of the British government. Thus the government of Gibraltar is entitled to request UK assistance.

But crucially, the detention itself was performed under EU restrictive measures placed on Syria, not Iran. James Turner QC, a prominent shipping barrister, said that while the import into the EU of Syrian oil has been prohibited since 2012 by Council Regulation 36/2012, the export of oil to Syria is not banned per se, despite widespread media commentary to that effect.

However, the same regulation bans the provision of “economic resources” to named individuals and entities listed in Annex II, and that term would certainly include an oil cargo. The key point here is the allegation that the vessel’s cargo is destined for the Baniyas Refinery, which was added to Annex II in 2014. The 2012 Regulation applies throughout the EU, including on “any ship under the jurisdiction of a member state.”

http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=uk...lang=en-US&w=KFwFgo7YLOviCEsWBzHShXngxlRaekbE
Click to expand...
 
Evilroddy said:
Rogue Valley:

That is just distraction.

Flagged =/= Ownership. This source provides the pertinent details and has a map showing the Grace I course prior to seizure. Only after seizure did she steer north-northeast into Gibralar's claimed waters. The page also indicates that tests conducted after seizure indicate she was carrying crude oil and not fuel oil as has been claimed.

https://tankertrackers.com/news/news/grace1-detained-gibraltar

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...
Even tankertrackers states that it's unclear whether the vessel was boarded in Gibraltar (EU) waters or in international ones ("We’re still waiting for a confirmation ").

There is no mention of Grace 1 having steered into Gib waters AFTER seizure, the Sat-image merely shows her to be within the latter.
 
Tangmo said:
As a noted shipping barrister states clearly, there is an EU Council Regulation and an Annex to it that enables the action taken by the government of Gibraltar and of the UK.

The regulation deals with "economic resources" that do of course include oil, since 2012. The Annex names names of places and people in Syria in particular, effective 2014. The barrister points out further that the 2012 regulation applies throughout the EU, to include "any ship under the jurisdiction of a member state."
Click to expand...
You'd better add that said jurisdiction also means "within territory of any such member state", before all this "high seas piracy" hype is thrown around again, not to mention the idiotic claim that "third parties" can do as they please.

Beyond which, thanks for the legal elucidation.
 
Chagos said:
You'd better add that said jurisdiction also means "within territory of any such member state", before all this "high seas piracy" hype is thrown around again, not to mention the idiotic claim that "third parties" can do as they please.

Beyond which, thanks for the legal elucidation.
Click to expand...

Sure thing and I understand the point might not be particularly clear based on news reports and people's biases stated in their arguments. Lawyers are indeed cheerily foreseeing what they call a "charterparty dispute" in this.

Yet the legal blog on international shipping and sanctions that I quoted includes this:

As a British overseas territory, Gibraltar is largely self-governing, but matters of defence, security and foreign policy remain within the ultimate control of the British government. Thus the government of Gibraltar is entitled to request UK assistance.


And there's this from the blog:

The charterparty is also likely to have a force majeure clause, and there may be arguments that the charterparty was tainted by illegality. Additionally, the BIMCO sanctions clause for time allows owners to refuse voyage orders that could expose them, their managers, the vessel or its insurers to sanctions. Charterers are then required to give new orders within 48 hours, failing which owners can discharge the cargo at charterers’ expense.


The ship's owners could sell the cargo to Gibraltar, UK or another party public or private for compensation thus making moot any legal questions of harm and remedy by Spain, Iran, Syria or any other government.

Private corporation lawyers and government attorneys are going to be arguing the legalities of this for some time to come. In the meantime we have political bellowers hollering about piracy and lapdogism and so on. We can expect they will go on. Of course.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
Really? Trump seems to think that he can piss all over the UK and they'll still be there, like a loyal dog kicked in the face.
Click to expand...

Tangmo said:
So say the Putin Fanboyz.
Click to expand...

Frigidweirdo said:
I need a translation on this one.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

No translations needed for either post.

Trump does abuse UK just as he abuses almost all the allies and strategic partners of the United States. This seizure however indicates the premier alliance of the world continues between the UK and the United States. Indeed, I doubt seriously any cooperation was needed or desired between the two core governments in this action. Trump being outside the core of the government in Washington of course.

I reiterate Iran is pushing the EU to the USA in its wildly reckless enrichment of uranium, currently underway. EU won't be able to accept it either. Those guys over there haven't ever been too bright or effective. I mean it took what, 50K Persians to defeat 300 Spartans. The Persians have hardly ever been right, not for thousands of years. It's in their blood so to speak. It's an Old World mindset thingy.

That should do it for you anyway, or so any reasonable person could think.
 
Last edited:
Tangmo said:
Wrong.

No translations needed for either post.

Trump does abuse UK just as he abuses almost all the allies and strategic partners of the United States. This seizure however indicates the premier alliance of the world continues between the UK and the United States. Indeed, I doubt seriously any cooperation was needed or desired between the two core governments in this action. Trump being outside the core of the government in Washington of course.

I reiterate Iran is pushing the EU to the USA in its wildly reckless enrichment of uranium, currently underway. EU won't be able to accept it either. Those guys over there haven't ever been too bright or effective. I mean it took what, 50K Persians to defeat 300 Spartans. The Persians have hardly ever been right, not for thousands of years. It's in their blood so to speak. It's an Old World mindset thingy.

That should do it for you anyway, or so any reasonable person could think.
Click to expand...

So, no translation needed, and then you went and translated. Glad you could save face.

Yes, the relationship between the UK and the US is there. But it's slowly eroding away.

Why is Iran wanting nuclear power and even nuclear weapons "wildly reckless" but Pakistan, mental nutjob Pakistan, being supported by the US to get nuclear weapons isn't? Why is selling arms to Saudi Arabia not reckless? I mean, 9/11, loads of Saudi terrorists, and they've been funding terrorism AGAINST THE US for years.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
So, no translation needed, and then you went and translated. Glad you could save face.

Yes, the relationship between the UK and the US is there. But it's slowly eroding away.

Why is Iran wanting nuclear power and even nuclear weapons "wildly reckless" but Pakistan, mental nutjob Pakistan, being supported by the US to get nuclear weapons isn't? Why is selling arms to Saudi Arabia not reckless? I mean, 9/11, loads of Saudi terrorists, and they've been funding terrorism AGAINST THE US for years.
Click to expand...

I said "anyway," I didn't say here's your begged for translation nor did I provide one. I've noticed instead your difficulty with replies in at least several instances here and there.

The P5+1 spent years negotiating the nuclear deal Trump negated between USA and Iran after having had nothing to do with it. P5 = the five permanent members of the UNSC: UK, France, USA, Russia, China. The plus one was Germany which was a term member.

The P5+1 started out in 2003 as the EU-3 which were UK, France, Germany. US didn't go near EU-3 negotiations with Iran because there was no negotiating with the devil as declared by Cheney, Bolton, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearl among others. They preferred instead to represent Satan and to speak for him. One of 'em even looked like him.

Iran enriching uranium will not bring the former P5+1 -- minus one of the P5 -- running to Tehran to support 'em. It will have the effect to reunite the P5+1 against Tehran for its own violation of the Agreement that it made with every one of 'em and all of 'em. The UNGA supported the P5+1 nearly absolutely. Fact is no one wants an Iran with nuclear weapons in the ME. It would be far more dangerous and imminent than nukes in India and Pakistan.

The ship seizure is more about Syria, Assad, Putin, than it is about Iran. In Iran 2m barrels is a drop in the bucket. So while Trump has done a lot of wrong things here, the ayatollahs are amazingly more stupid than he is or ever could be.
 
Tangmo said:
I said "anyway," I didn't say here's your begged for translation nor did I provide one. I've noticed instead your difficulty with replies in at least several instances here and there.

The P5+1 spent years negotiating the nuclear deal Trump negated between USA and Iran after having had nothing to do with it. P5 = the five permanent members of the UNSC: UK, France, USA, Russia, China. The plus one was Germany which was a term member.

The P5+1 started out in 2003 as the EU-3 which were UK, France, Germany. US didn't go near EU-3 negotiations with Iran because there was no negotiating with the devil as declared by Cheney, Bolton, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearl among others. They preferred instead to represent Satan and to speak for him. One of 'em even looked like him.

Iran enriching uranium will not bring the former P5+1 -- minus one of the P5 -- running to Tehran to support 'em. It will have the effect to reunite the P5+1 against Tehran for its own violation of the Agreement that it made with every one of 'em and all of 'em. The UNGA supported the P5+1 nearly absolutely. Fact is no one wants an Iran with nuclear weapons in the ME. It would be far more dangerous and imminent than nukes in India and Pakistan.

The ship seizure is more about Syria, Assad, Putin, than it is about Iran. In Iran 2m barrels is a drop in the bucket. So while Trump has done a lot of wrong things here, the ayatollahs are amazingly more stupid than he is or ever could be.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, must be my difficulties. Anyway, I don't really come on here to put up with this nonsense. So, bye.
 
Tangmo said:
Those guys over there haven't ever been too bright or effective. I mean it took what, 50K Persians to defeat 300 Spartans. The Persians have hardly ever been right, not for thousands of years. It's in their blood so to speak. It's an Old World mindset thingy.
Click to expand...

besides, this is racist at it´s best

and not true - they had an Empire bigger than the Romans later for hundreds of years. They invented a lot of stuff, where very progressive and tolerant with Religion. Do don´t manage that if you are "gnetically dumb"
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom