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

[OldFatGuy]

Diplomacy at work

 

[Fledermaus]

Then Iran has the right to seize UK ships passing through its territorial waters does it not?

It depends on the reason.

 

[Jack Hays]

It is increasingly likely that Iran will lose some naval assets.

 

[Athanasius68]

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

Then it won't be a problem for them.

 

[Athanasius68]

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.

The deal last for only ten years.
Iran has no intention of building nukes? Then it should be relatively simple for them.

 

[Tangmo]

That's why a buildup of forces would have been necessary.

Forget a US buildup in Afghanistan against Iran but remember to get a map. There are too many variables of supply train continuity, reliability, dependability presented by neighboring and surrounding countries. Speaking of which....

All I see is Iran trying to start a war.

That would be the nuclear ayatollah-con Bolton and he's in Washington. Plus Afghanistan has borders with Pakistan, China and with Russia at the Caspian Sea; Russia can also get an old Soviet do-over by opening a corridor through sovereign weakling Uzbekstan into northern Afghan. Iran and Pak have long borders with Afghan west and east which makes Afghan look like a turkey sandwich. So a supply and logistics guy you're not. Which is why I say to forget it but to remember that.

At the very least it would have benefited us to let them strengthen their economy and position for another six years until the sunset provisions hit, and then faced this crisis.

Right?

Trump will be in lockup by then.

Pakistan is far closer to China than Russia. Its relationship with China is more important than its relationship with the US.

Russia has traditionally been closer to India than Pakistan, but has opened up to Pakistan recently.

The US has ignored Pakistan's strategic interests regarding Afghanistan (depth vs India) in the same way as the US is ignoring Turkey's strategic interests (Kurds) as such is losing them both as allies/friends

I've read the original seed of Japan declaring war on us was when we snubbed them during the post-WWI negotiations, and they saw there would never be a place for them amongst the major nations unless they compelled it.

So pretty parallel, yeah.

Prime Minister Abe showed up in Iran to try to slow things down and a Japanese tanker got dinged by explosives. Japan the island nation off Asia is to the US in the Pacific-Asia as UK the island nation off Europe is to the US in the Atlantic and Eurasia, the Med-ME. Abe leads a wealthy, advanced, pacifist democratic society yet he was manhandled by the elites of Persia where they know nothing about Japan and the Japanese to include history and post war history in particular. Trump's chaos has put friendly fire on Abe while the Iran elites are taking turns to shoot one another in the foot. All of this is well beyond Trump and his build a golf course mentality.

 

[cpwill]

Pakistan is far closer to China than Russia. Its relationship with China is more important than its relationship with the US.

Russia has traditionally been closer to India than Pakistan, but has opened up to Pakistan recently.

The US has ignored Pakistan's strategic interests regarding Afghanistan (depth vs India)

You know, I think I'll give a rats **** about Pakistan's India paranoia approximately just after they stop training, equipping, protecting, and otherwise enabling the very folks who have killed thousands of Americans and who continue to blow people up across Afghanistan

Until they do so, I vote we give our position, influence, and structure in Afghanistan over to the Indians to use as they please, and start turning over intel we've gathered on Pakistan's conventional forces and ISI-supported Kashmiri groups as well. It is in our Strategic Interest to draw closer to India as a way of checking a rising China - and Pakistan is an insane asshole with American (and British) blood on its hands. Let's give them dominance over Pakistan as a house-warming present.

in the same way as the US is ignoring Turkey's strategic interests (Kurds) as such is losing them both as allies/friends

We've hardly ignored it (we haven't the option), however,

A) Erdogan uses the Kurds as a punching bag to gin up political support - his party lost the Mayoral election, and so now he's (predictably) lining up on the border.
B) We were willing to prioritize defeating ISIS, and the Kurds were the only reliable, capable partner with the willingness to do so.


Like Pakistan, if Turkey wants us to support their interests, they need to stop supporting our enemies .

 

[Evilroddy]

Territorial waters include the territorial sea, contiguous zone and exclusive economic zone. The contiguous zone extends for twice the distance of the territorial sea and in it a state has customs jurisdiction.

Your map has an obvious flaw in either labeling or failing to uniformly illustrate.

One can see that territorial waters consume all possible routes. One can see why Spain said, "hey", but that's between the EU.

Ecofarm:

3. Contiguous Zone

The Contiguous Zone (CZ) is a band of sea up to 12 miles wide, immediately seaward of the outer margin of the TS; it may be claimed by the coastal State for the purpose of enforcing its domestic laws relating to customs, immigration, fishing and sanitation. Although the coastal State cannot regulate within the CZ, within that zone it can enforce breaches of its laws that occurred on its territory or within the TS. This transitional zone prevents ships from breaking the law and then hovering offshore just out of reach. With the creation of the Exclusive Economic Zone (discussed below), most States have abandoned their former reliance on the concept of a CZ.

Bolding added to quote by me for emphasis.

This should make things clear. You're wrong.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[pamak]

My mistake.

Territorial waters - Wikipedia

And nothing of this prevents free passage of shipping. From your link

The territorial sea is regarded as the sovereign territory of the state, although foreign ships (military and civilian) are allowed innocent passage through it, or transit passage for straits;

Also, as I said, if you think that the UK did nothing wrong based on international law then you should say the same about Iran.

 

[pamak]

The deal last for only ten years.
Iran has no intention of building nukes? Then it should be relatively simple for them.

And nothing of the above addresses what I said

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.

Iran may want to renew the agreement. Plus, it is ridiculous to talk about what Iran MAY do when Israel already refuses to be part of any nuclear agreement.

 

[Athanasius68]

And nothing of the above addresses what I said

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.

Iran may want to renew the agreement. Plus, it is ridiculous to talk about what Iran MAY do when Israel already refuses to be part of any nuclear agreement.

The agreement ends in about 7 years. Then all bets are off. Would they wish to renew? For a price, perhaps. Let's set it permanently- now.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Again, Iran's regime is a lawless, mendacious regime of terror...

The Iranian people take part in local elections all the time, have access to western television, and can go on twitter to organize protests. Iran is not some brutal, despotic police state. It's like Russia if it were far more Orthodox. Let's not pretend that the Iranians truly despise their government and are just itching for a chance to overthrow it. The Iranians have thus far demonstrated they're far more rational actors than say Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. That's why we were able to negotiate a deal with them in the first place.

 

[TheGoverness]

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.

Heh. He does look like a grumpy Santa Claus.

 

[apdst]

Forget a US buildup in Afghanistan against Iran but remember to get a map. There are too many variables of supply train continuity, reliability, dependability presented by neighboring and surrounding countries. Speaking of which....




That would be the nuclear ayatollah-con Bolton and he's in Washington. Plus Afghanistan has borders with Pakistan, China and with Russia at the Caspian Sea; Russia can also get an old Soviet do-over by opening a corridor through sovereign weakling Uzbekstan into northern Afghan. Iran and Pak have long borders with Afghan west and east which makes Afghan look like a turkey sandwich. So a supply and logistics guy you're not. Which is why I say to forget it but to remember that.








Trump will be in lockup by then.











Prime Minister Abe showed up in Iran to try to slow things down and a Japanese tanker got dinged by explosives. Japan the island nation off Asia is to the US in the Pacific-Asia as UK the island nation off Europe is to the US in the Atlantic and Eurasia, the Med-ME. Abe leads a wealthy, advanced, pacifist democratic society yet he was manhandled by the elites of Persia where they know nothing about Japan and the Japanese to include history and post war history in particular. Trump's chaos has put friendly fire on Abe while the Iran elites are taking turns to shoot one another in the foot. All of this is well beyond Trump and his build a golf course mentality.

We've been supporting troops in Afghanistan since 2001; as many as 100,000. The logistic system is well established for that region. At this point, there are very few unknowns.

Besides that, the Afghan front wouldn't be the main effort. That would come from the west, by land and amphibious forces.

 

[apdst]

who;s oil tankers? ours?

the world doesn't want us to be the police force and frankly I am sick of it, so let them take care of it unless it is our actual assets being harmed.

if they find their ability to do so lacking, then they need to get their asses in gear.

The **** the don't. If we didn't do it, they would have to do it. The last thing the Brits want to do is go-it-alone in a protracted Middle East war.

 

[apdst]

depends on what "war" means. A couple cruise missiles into the government headquarters, or an SAS assassination team taking out a few of the leaders-not war. Carpet bombing Tehran and sinking anything that floats with an Iranian Flag on it-that would be a bit too much.

I said this in another thread: all we need to do is destroy some infrastructure with aircraft and missiles and Iran would spends years and billions of dollars putting it all back together. They would be too busy dealing with that to play their little reindeer games. No troops would have to set foot in Iran.

 

[apdst]

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.

Another call for appeasement. :lamo

 

[Felis Leo]

The Iranian people take part in local elections all the time, have access to western television, and can go on twitter to organize protests. Iran is not some brutal, despotic police state. It's like Russia if it were far more Orthodox. Let's not pretend that the Iranians truly despise their government and are just itching for a chance to overthrow it. The Iranians have thus far demonstrated they're far more rational actors than say Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. That's why we were able to negotiate a deal with them in the first place.

That is an utter fabrication, Jredbaron96. The Islamic Republic of Iran is an autocracy. The elections that Iranians regularly engage in are meaningless because Supreme Leader of Iran can overturn any election. The Supreme Leader can rewrite any law. The candidates put up for election are pre-approved by the Iranian regime. And speaking as a former Baha'i, please do not come to me telling me that the Regime is not despotic. It is an autocratic, lawless, mendacious regime of terror.

I have not seen any indication that they are "more rational" than Saudi Arabia. And that is an extraordinarily low bar to have for a country's government even if they were.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

I said this in another thread: all we need to do is destroy some infrastructure with aircraft and missiles and Iran would spends years and billions of dollars putting it all back together. They would be too busy dealing with that to play their little reindeer games. No troops would have to set foot in Iran.

That assumes that Iran wont respond by doing the same to Saudi infrastructure. Iran has clearly stated they would respond in that way to any attack on Iran territory

 

[apdst]

That assumes that Iran wont respond by doing the same to Saudi infrastructure. Iran has clearly stated they would respond in that way to any attack on Iran territory

That's why we prioritize targets and attack their aircraft and missiles first.

 

[Jack Hays]

That assumes that Iran wont respond by doing the same to Saudi infrastructure. Iran has clearly stated they would respond in that way to any attack on Iran territory

The Iranians would get very much the worse end of that exchange.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

The Iranians would get very much the worse end of that exchange.

Yes they would, does not change that they could very well try it

 

[Jack Hays]

Yes they would, does not change that they could very well try it

Maybe not a bad thing, on balance.

 

[apdst]

Yes they would, does not change that they could very well try it

Let'em try. Nothing is 100%. If they hit a couple friendly targets, but lose 90% of their aircraft and indirect fire weapons, who loses? Iran loses.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Let'em try. Nothing is 100%. If they hit a couple friendly targets, but lose 90% of their aircraft and indirect fire weapons, who loses? Iran loses.

Depends on what is lost on the Saudi side

If the ports are hit, and pipelines destroyed, a spike in oil prices to $150 per barrel could be seen quite easily lasting for a few months to a couple of years. Further destabilization and more ME governments collapse sending another few million refugees to Europe (along with even more African refugees).

Hoping for the best is a fools game. Obama's regime changes in Syria and Libya were idiotic hope for the best plan for the best, both failures. GWB's invasion of Iraq was another hope and plan for the best failures, and so has been Afghanistan.

You are falling into the same line of thinking. Sure the US will easily destroy Iran in the beginning, but fail to plan or expect what the outcome will be. As such failure will be the end result. Even if Iran's military was destroyed, it could turn out to be a pyrrhic victory