Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
July 19, 2019
Britain Pirates Iranian Ship ‘Grace 1’ – Iran Responds – Takes British Tanker Hostage – (Updated 3x)

Updated 3 x  below

On July the Brits used their colonial outlet Gibraltar to steal the Iranian tanker 'Grace 1' and its load of 2 million barrel of oil. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps then threatened to take similar measures against British ships. Today Gibraltar announce that it will hold the 'Grace 1' for another month. We can guess that those plans will soon change.

It seems that today, at about 16:00 UTC, the IRGC got lucky.


via Marinetrafficbigger

The British tanker 'Stena Impero' was on its way from Fujairah, UAE to Jubail in Saudi Arabia.

Reading the track below we can speculate what happened. Just when the ship had passed through the Straits of Hormuz from east to west it was approached by IRGC fast boots. The ship made a sharp turn south towards Oman but could not outrun the IRGC boots. It was boarded. It then slowed down, made a sharp 180 degree turn and sailed towards north. It is now in Iranian waters. The last Automatic Identification System (AIS) signal it emitted came in at about 17:30 UTC.


via Marinetrafficbigger

The Stena Impero, IMO 9797400, is a British flagged oil products and chemical tanker. Build in 2018 it has a deadweight tonnage of 49,682 metric tons. The owner is Stena Bulk XIII Cyprus Limited, which is likely controlled by the Swedish company Stena Bulk AB in Goteborg, Sweden. The operator is Northern Marine Ltd in Glasgow, Scotland. The ship sails under the British flag.

The ships arrest today is another consequence of Trumps idiotic anti-Iran policies which the British minions seem to support. The U.S. tries to build some military escort service for ship in the Strait of Hormuz. But no other country wants to join:

The United States is struggling to win its allies’ support for an initiative to heighten surveillance of vital Middle East oil shipping lanes because of fears it will increase tension with Iran, six sources familiar with the matter said.

“The Americans want to create an ‘alliance of the willing’ who confront future attacks,” a Western diplomat said. “Nobody wants to be on that confrontational course and part of a U.S. push against Iran.

The British security source said it was not viable to escort every commercial vessel, a view shared by several other countries.

“It’s just impossible. The Strait is already too crowded,” an Asian official said of an escort system in the Strait of Hormuz which is 21 miles (33 km) wide at its narrowest point.

The dimwits in London who listened to John Bolton and ordered to pirate the Iranian ship are now in deep trouble. It was an utterly stupid move. There is little they can do now except to let the 'Grace 1' go. But who in Britain can now give the order? Theresa May is about gone and Boris Johnson is still busy collecting votes to become the next prime minister.

Added: The IRGC now confirmed that it took the ship:

The IRGC Navy announced in statement that British oil tanker “Stena Impero” has been captured on Friday evening because of violating the international maritime regulations when crossing the Strait of Hormuz.

The UK oil tanker has been seized by the IRGC Navy forces in the first naval zone at the request of the Ports and Maritime Organization of Iran at the province of Hormozgan, a statement said.

The British vessel has been taken to the port and delivered to the Ports and Maritime Organization for the legal and judicial processes, it added.

Update 19:00 UTC

Another ship seems to have "violated international maritime regulations". The 'Mesdar', IMO 9452672, passed east to west through Iran's territorial waters north of Abu Musa island when it suddenly made a 90 degree turn and sailed north towards the Iranian coast.


via Marinetrafficbigger

With 333 meter length and 60 meter breadth the Liberian flagged ship is a very large crude oil carrier. It has a deadweight tonnage of 315,802 tons. The ship came from Lanshan, China and was supposed to go to Ras Tanura in Saudi Arabia. The last AIS signal from the ship was received at 17:30 UTC. The manager/operator and owner(?) of the Mesdar is Norbulk Shipping Ltd in Glasgow, Scotland.

Update 20:15 UTC

The IRGC let the 'Mesdar' go after reminding her of the relevant rules. The ship has turned southwest to continue its planned voyage.

Update July 20 – 15:30 UTC

Iran now says that 'Stena Impero' was accompanied by a British military ship. The IRGC forces boarded the tanker by roping from a helicopter. There is video from inside the helicopter and of the boarding scene as observed from other boats. The capture was too fast for the British military ship to react.

When the British military pirated the 'Grace 1' it also used a helicopter to bring its Marine commandos on board. Iran now demonstrated that it can act on the same operational level.

Comments

Javad Zarif, Foreign Minister of Islamic Republic of Iran:

Reminder
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D_yNq7rWwAAreK6.jpg

Posted by: curious man | Jul 20 2019 3:25 utc | 101

@ jr… the analogy is applicable on a number of other levels, but not the ones you cite!!! in fact those traits are now shared more by the usa, then iran!!

Posted by: james | Jul 20 2019 3:35 utc | 102

Interview with Oliver Stone
July 19, 2019 22:00The Kremlin, Moscow
Vladimir Putin answered questions from American film director, screenwriter and producer Oliver Stone. The interview was recorded on June 19, 2019 in the Kremlin.
Oliver Stone: […] But I don’t know what is going on with the American culture. It’s very strange right now.
Vladimir Putin: Is there an American culture?
Oliver Stone: As you know, I’ve been very rebel all my life. Still am. And I have to tell you, I’m shocked by some of the behaviours and the thinking of the new generation. It takes so much for granted. And so much of the argument, so much of the thinking, so much of the newspaper, television commentaries about gender, people identify themselves, and social media, this and that, I’m male, I’m female, I’m transgender, I’m cisgender. It goes on forever, and there is a big fight about who is who. It seems like we miss the bigger point.
Vladimir Putin: They live too well. They have nothing to think about.
Oliver Stone: Yeah, but it’s not a healthy culture.
Vladimir Putin: Well, yes.

Posted by: curious man | Jul 20 2019 4:15 utc | 103

https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2019/07/20/601366/US-troops-deployment-Saudi-Arabia-salman
speaks for it self.. the patriot missile and USA troops, something most guy in the street Americans would be against, if only the guy in the street knew about it (even most members of the House of Representatives did not want more weapons in Saudi hands), Patriots to be placed in Saudi Arabia.. to defend the poor helpless head chopping infra structure destroying Saudis against the giant bare hand success of the big, bad Yemeni tribes..
It will be interesting to see if the missiles can protect the Saudis from the Yemeni.. the Saudis might need some S-50000s for that job? The end of Saudi Arabia is in sight IMO.. and with it the end of the Petrodollar Agreement and with it the end of the hegemonic power of the USD. My bet is after the USA moves into Saudi Arabia, it will, if the operation is successful, be but a few years until Israel annexes Saudi Arabia. The start the war bell is ringing, WWIII has begun IMO back in America where the USA resides, raging interest in avoiding war is the letter of the day. If I were UK i would be looking up.. to read the made-in-place-of label attached to the bottom of the falling objects as the objects hit nearby ground and explode.

Posted by: snake | Jul 20 2019 4:32 utc | 104

The British are pathetic as they are falling in a pattern of stupid actions just to please their USavior after the Brexit disaster. Antagonising Russia and Iran and pleasing Israel is how the UK plans to seduce Trump into a trade deal that would save the UK from bankrupty…

Posted by: Virgile | Jul 20 2019 4:47 utc | 105

james @102
I’m not sure about those other “levels” either.
Pat Lang says:

… you may well have a situation in which the Iranians decide that they must hit back or accept that they are not the men they thought they were.

US cut off raw materials that Japan needed for making war. But Iran has shown no inclination to make war on its neighbors. Cutting Iranian oil trading is not analogous.
Iran has the support of Russia and China – the Japanese didn’t have such allies (Germany was on the other side of the World). Iran is not forced to act precipitously. And that’s why we’re seeing provocations that attempt to goad Iran into being the aggressor.
It seems very much as though trade sanctions are just a convenient way to blame Iran for any “incident” – witness the tanker attacks and rampant speculation that Iran was behind them followed by a provocation in which Iran downed an expensive US drone. That provocation appears to have been a set-up for Iran to down a military passenger aircraft (not the drone).
Trump first words: “Iran made a mistake!” Indeed they did. They downed the wrong aircraft (from the perspective of a Zionist warmonger).

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jul 20 2019 4:51 utc | 106

snake @104–
Outlaw US Empire Patriot missile systems have mostly failed to defeat the Houthi drone and missile offensive, to the point of deliberately targeting and destroying a battery. MbS has issued an invitation similar to the one given GHW Bush after Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait. What will come of that time will tell.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jul 20 2019 4:54 utc | 107

james
If/when war starts with Iran, I’m not sure that it’ll be because Iran lashes out in frustration with the sanctions but USA political and military establishment will want us to believe that to be the case.
They will say: Iran COULD’VE chosen peace. They COULD’VE chosen to negotiate and to end their terrorism BUT INSTEAD they chose to attack us.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jul 20 2019 4:59 utc | 108

@103 curious man.. thanks for the putin transcript…here are the salient comments in reference to iran… others can check your link for more.. thanks.
“Oliver Stone: Continuing that theme of strategy of tension, how is Russia affected by the US-Iranian confrontation?
Vladimir Putin: This worries us because this is happening near our borders. This may destabilize the situation around Iran, affect some countries with which we have very close relations, causing additional refugee flows on a large scale plus substantially damage the world economy as well as the global energy sector. All this is extremely disturbing. Therefore we would welcome any improvement when it comes to relations between the US and Iran. A simple escalation of tension will not be advantageous for anyone. It seems to me that this is also the case with the US. One might think that there are only benefits here, but there will be setbacks as well. The positive and negative factors have to be calculated.
Oliver Stone: Yeah. Scary.
Vladimir Putin: No, this is not scary.
Oliver Stone: You sound very depressed, much more depressed than last time.
Vladimir Putin: Last time the situation concerning Iran was not like this. Last time nobody said anything about getting into our energy and other networks. Last time the developments were more positive.
Oliver Stone: The situation is worse now?
Vladimir Putin: Take North Korea, they have also rolled back a bit. Trade wars are unfolding.
Oliver Stone: Venezuela.
Vladimir Putin: Venezuela as well. In other words, regrettably, the situation has not improved, so there is nothing special to be happy about. On the other hand, we feel confident. We have no problems.”
@ jackrabbit.. it is the financial and etc. sanctions on iran that is the very same as that expressed towards japan.. i am sorry if you are unable to see the parallels, but a little imagination would go a long ways my friend! regardless we both are in agreement with where this is headed and who the protagonist and antagonist are too, although it is painted in the msm opposite the reality generally.. in this regard i note how many folks on the cbc news site are clear on who is who in all this by a large margin… hopefully americans aren’t as thick as they are often painted out to be – excluding pat lang of course, lol..

Posted by: james | Jul 20 2019 5:01 utc | 109

@108 jr.. i agree completely in how you frame it will be very closely resemble how it gets framed in the msm…

Posted by: james | Jul 20 2019 5:03 utc | 110

“Been listening to Zarif in many interviews with the West and he is just so impressive. Much like Lavrov. Just logical and diplomatic.”
“While at the same time lacking any the bad manners, bad temper and that absolute bitternes so common in US and UK stablishments…”
That’s because they’re hangry. They’re hungry for the lost dominance they once thought they had, and they’re angry for no longer having it. So they’re hangry ;o)
Nuff Sed.

Posted by: Nuff Sed | Jul 20 2019 5:16 utc | 111

Below is a short quote about the latest regarding the detained tanker from Reuters

GENEVA (Reuters) – The detained British-flagged tanker Stena Impero was in an accident with an Iranian fishing boat and ignored its distress call, Iran’s Fars news agency reported on Saturday, quoting an official.
All 23 crew on the tanker were now at Bandar Abbas port and would remain on the vessel until the end of an investigation, Fars quoted the official as saying.
“It got involved in an accident with an Iranian fishing boat… When the boat sent a distress call, the British-flagged ship ignored it,” the head of Ports and Maritime Organisation in southern Hormozgan province, Allahmorad Afifipour, told Fars.
“The tanker is now at Iran’s Bandar Abbas port and all its 23 crew members will remain on the ship until the probe is over.”

Posted by: psychohistorian | Jul 20 2019 6:02 utc | 112

Her Majesty’s Goverment, as usual, delivers utmost accuracy and honesty to parliamentary inquires. Judge for yourself: “Can we have a firm assurance that we did this not just at the say-so of the US?” [Guardian Today] Lady Goldie, for the government, insisted the request to intercept the ship came from the government of Gibraltar.
How UK is in a pickle because they had no choice but to follow instructions from their colony (with 32 thousands inhabitants). Or was it a former colony with ca. 10,000 times larger population?

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jul 20 2019 6:06 utc | 113

If your first reaction to the reports of US shooting down the Iranian drone is “fake news”, congrats to you for having a healthy and skeptical mind.
It’s get even comical when Iran shown the damning counter-evidence of the same drone filming US warships at close range: The US Navy is so incompetent or/and cowardly that they didn’t even managed spot it or shoot it down.

Posted by: Jonathan | Jul 20 2019 6:12 utc | 114

Cycloben @ 72
If you believe Thierry Mehsan’s analysis, which I do, the aim of this whole theatre is to keep the price of oil in a certain bracket, say $60 at the bottom and $80 at the top. The US needs to protect its frackers and at the same time avoid enraging the voters with excessively high gas prices. All the main players know that this is the game, which is why war is so unlikely (famous last words).
I wonder where oil prices would be if Venezuela, Iran, and Libya were free to operate to their full potentials?

Posted by: Montreal | Jul 20 2019 6:21 utc | 115

I see there is a lot of speculation here about analogy between Japanese embargo 1940 and today embargo on Iran.

Is there a danger of cornering Iran by embargo to start a full scale war?

will US Maximum pressure cause frustrated Iran to start war?

Fortunately US maximum pressure has a reverse effect on Iran. It was a remedy for Iran’s internal problems, namely corruption, mismanagement, mafia.

A friend of mine travelling in west, visited us last week. I had visited him last year in Iran. He show us positive changes  happened during las 12 months. There are a lot improvement:  luxury foreign products are gone, local domestic products are emerging,  there is no scarcity of foods, subsistence  and commodities, there is no ration. Market  is stabilizing, gradually.

Iran government is not expansionist, Iran people  are not expansionist, deeply. There is no parallel between Iran and Japan of 1940.

Iran’s military strategy is defensive, it is constructed based on a defence senario.

Posted by: arata | Jul 20 2019 7:51 utc | 116

I’ve been watching recent interviews with Iranian Foreign Minister, Zarif, and he’s saying that Iran will not bow to external diktat.
They’re happy to talk, of course, and agree to mutually beneficial arrangements, even giving up a nuclear weapons programme, for all eternity!!
But, if their enemies don’t abide by agreements they’ve made, then Iran shall defend itself, using all means necessary.
It’s amusing to look at the relationships Iran has in its region.
What does the US, UK, France etc have there anymore.
Iran and Turkey are the future of the region now. The remakers of it.
The fake Western houses in decline.

Posted by: Peter | Jul 20 2019 8:05 utc | 117

|@ Scotch Bingeington | Jul 19 2019 22:31 utc | 63
Acknowledging your comment. Residing in a UTC +2 timezone, I had retired when your entry was made. Others have questioned since similar to my would-be reply although I would have inquired 1) if sudden deflagging was normal procedure? 2) what transgression initiated the procedure? 3) was notification of administrative action taken in a timely manner? 4) was sufficient time given for the affected to reply? 5) were the affected even aware their vessel had been deflagged as they transited the straits?
There hangs over this whole episode a putrid smell of Washington swamps replete with London wannabe gators. Sad.

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Jul 20 2019 8:17 utc | 118

Iran has no choice it has to defend itself, that is it !
The alternative is to be subordinated by the hostile USA,
That would clearly mean having it’s resources controlled by the US ! A disaster for Iran and the rest of the world, for this reason-
We have seen over the last year and longer how US have tried to ‘invade’ Syria, Venezuela extra,
The USA are clearly delusional in thinking they are the Global master race ! They are not, the rest of the world would not want to be in that position, not least having witnessed Trumps latest disgusting political rally.

Posted by: Mark2 | Jul 20 2019 8:35 utc | 119

@ Jackrabbit | Jul 20 2019 4:51 utc | 106
US cut off raw materials that Japan needed for making war.
(curmudgeon)
Please re-read the history of the period and do not fall into that trap built of ignorance. Off top of the head, (then great) Britain and France declared War on Germany in 1939 for invading their ally Poland. Britain began purchase of war materials from the U.S., financing the establishment of munition production about the same time. Would war production possibly use up excess production available that Japan had been acquiring? Same goes for petroleum. Although the U.S. remained neutral, its business interests were with Britain and France. Also look into when Japan joined the Axis powers, that might suggest something beside FDR having and acting on nefarious designs in the Pacific. The lack of historical knowledge is reaching abysmal levels; no thought in evidence; the fictional fantasies of conspiracy driving all rationality away before it. Those adhering to repeating the trash-history that produced your statement have at best Disney-fried minds and should be avoided at every opportunity. (/curmudgeon)

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Jul 20 2019 8:41 utc | 120

Thanks b for this excellent reporting and analysis! Much better than the biased, propagandistic accounts provided by the usual culprits, i.e. BBC, CNN, Fox, Sky, etc. Kudos! 🙂

Posted by: Deschutes | Jul 20 2019 9:26 utc | 121

By intervening with to different teams on two ships at the same moment,the Iranians try to make it clear to the world,that they don’t mean harm to non-warmongering nations,because they released the Liberian tanker immediately after checking,and seized the british owned vessel in obvious retaliation for the Grace 1 at Gibraltar,within hours after Gibraltar declared to maintain its seizure for 30 days.
Please,can somebody answer my probably stupid question:How marine traffic and other vessel position sites can give the path followed by a vessel that silences its positioning device? Just by connecting the two dots of disappearing and reappearing?Or is there another way that I fail to understand?

Posted by: willie | Jul 20 2019 9:31 utc | 122

@ willie | Jul 20 2019 9:31 utc | 122
It is reported by Iran that the first vessel that was taken into custody had collided with a fishing vessel then turned off its identification and tried to leave the scene while ignoring the fishing vessel’s mayday. Facts: 1) Fishing vessels in the act of fishing are privileged with right of way as they may not be able to readily manoeuvre to avoid collision. 2) turning off ship’s identification transponder does not make a ship invisible to radar, just unidentified. 3) after the collision the tanker steamed directly into the paths of other maritime traffic adhering to established channels through the strait. and most importantly 4) the tanker ignored the distress mayday sent by the fishing vessel – this a cardinal requirement of ALL ships to respond to a mayday distress call (it has been so since the sinking of the Titanic in 1916) but the tanker steamed away instead. The tanker violated every standard of navigation possible and should reside deep enough in Iranian prisons that they must pump air to them.
The ship is still tracked by radar but does not have an identification while the transponder is inactivated.

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Jul 20 2019 9:57 utc | 123

@ T-Bear 123.
Thank you for your informative comment. Just one thing though, the sinking of the Titanic occurred in the early morning of April 15, 1912.

Posted by: Beibdnn. | Jul 20 2019 10:19 utc | 124

@ Formerly T-Bear | Jul 20 2019 9:57 utc | 123
You mean this is a hit and run case?

Posted by: Jiri | Jul 20 2019 10:23 utc | 125

@ #124 and #125
Working in morning w/o coffee, the built in editor in non-function mode. Just remembered date and IRS returns happen.
If the reports received of the Iranian Guards are correct, then it does take on that colour.

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Jul 20 2019 10:33 utc | 126

#81
This legal jibber-jabber is pretty hilarious. Fact is Britain first robbed Iran, and then Iran robbed back. Now Britain came up with this legal hocus pocus to look the victim.
I just hope Iran continues to collect British scalps so that it runs out of oil.

Posted by: Cycloben | Jul 20 2019 10:51 utc | 127

MSM drumming on Grace 1 seizure reason: “In breach of EU sanctions directed against various Syrian entities and individuals”
Can anyone explain what is the legal premise for it, if any? I suppose EU sanctions to Syrian and Syria cover only Syrian and EU actors, not third party actors… Anything impacting third party actors is not “sanctions” or “embargo”… It is a “blockade”, and it didn’t result to me any blockade is in place… particularly because blockades are “act of war” unless authorised with a UN resolution. Can anyone clarify the above?

Posted by: gpcus | Jul 20 2019 10:53 utc | 128

What happens when Tehran is under the mushroom cloud? Who does what response?

Posted by: c2 | Jul 20 2019 11:13 utc | 129

It seems to me that the more “reasons” Iran gives for seizing the tanker, the more it sounds like they’re trying to disavow and retreat from the perception that this was in retaliation for the British pirate hijacking. But I would’ve thought they’d want that message to come through loud and clear.
Seems to me that if they wanted to give a “reason” while the real message nevertheless gets through, they would’ve done better to stick with the original rationale. But now they add this fishing boat collision. How many more reasons are they going to come up with?
Not to mention how, the more they insist that they did this only for certain reasons and not as a reprisal, the less rationale they’ll have for holding the tanker until Grace I is released.

Posted by: Russ | Jul 20 2019 11:20 utc | 130

“Vladimir Putin: This worries us because this is happening near our borders.”
Putin should stop mealymouthing and lamenting, and finally get Russia and China to forcefully declare their solidarity with Iran. If it’s “near our borders”, isn’t that rather compelling?

Posted by: bjd | Jul 20 2019 11:24 utc | 131

@ arata 116
I don’t think Iran is that pressured economically by sanctions. It is a big country with many resources and allies. What I think is happening is that the attitude of the west is more regards Syria (and Iraq, Yemen and Lebanon). The move is still to remove Assad, or at least neutralise the presence of Iran in Syria, which will cut off Hezbollah in Lebanon and leave Israel a freer hand in its proximity. The US nuclear and missile demands go in that direction also. So although Iran itself can weather sanctions, they have a strong affect on its position in the region, if it retreats because of them.
So it can be seen as analogous to Japan in WW2 to a degree for Iran’s Syria ally, Iran’s foreign position. If it cedes that then it has the west moving further towards its border,and loses future regional access. Apart from that it is also questioning western hegemony, out of a sense of principle if nothing else – if you do not react it is taken as that you accept that hegemony. So the west is testing Iran and Iran tests back as reply.
@ gpcus that is right. This is looked at on a previous thread somewhere. The sanctions are EU on Syria transcribed recently into UK law, but UK is maintaining unilateral jurisdiction to enact them. The US might also try to lay claim to the tanker later by some other laws (asset forfeiture by Israeli groups as compensation). The act of stopping Grace1 by UK in territorial waters is legally dubious.

Posted by: gzon | Jul 20 2019 11:41 utc | 132

@Montreal #115
The leading companies in the oil fracking business are already making money.
It is the medium and small companies that are losing.
What is also interesting is that all of these companies were not doing as well when oil was >$100, because costs were disproportionately higher.

Posted by: c1ue | Jul 20 2019 11:52 utc | 133

The Brits were probably thinking to keep the Iran’s tanker hostage and to exchange it with the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe.

Posted by: Tilly | Jul 20 2019 11:58 utc | 134

@ gpcus | Jul 20 2019 10:53 utc | 128
There is no legal basis except for the self appointed authority of the EU.
The EU has no right to impose sanctions on anyone and neither does the US or anyone else.
The only legitimate sanction is the one from the UN Security ouncil.

Posted by: Jiri | Jul 20 2019 12:01 utc | 135

@ c2 129 & bjd 131
Putin has stated that any Nuclear attack of any type of weapon, Tactical, Strategic etc on any of Russia’s allies will be considered an attack on Russia itself and will be responded to by a full retaliatory Nuclear strike against the aggressor.
Iran is considered an important ally to Russia.
Putin is worried because he understands how thuggish and hubristic the current U.S. politik is, not to mention deluded. There is a real risk that the U.S. attacking Iran on the behest of it’s owners, will suddenly realize that they are in a conflict that is causing them huge, possibly irreparable losses to their military and will launch a Nuclear attack to try to redress the balance.
The U.S. politik are clueless to Russia’s culture. Putin has said that they, Russia will die as martyrs whilst the aggressors will not have time to repent. He isn’t bluffing.
Will the U.S. and it’s masters wake up to the stupidity of this senseless brinkmanship? One can only hope.

Posted by: Beibdnn. | Jul 20 2019 12:04 utc | 136

US Central Command is Disengenous.
The strait is only 21 mi wide && Iran owns and controls the Greater and Lesser Tubs near the south coast. The traffic lanes are entirely within Iranian territorial waters.
There is no “International” airspace in the strait. The south side is Omani territory.
INDY

Posted by: Dr. George W Oprisko | Jul 20 2019 12:08 utc | 137

@ Russ 130
The problem is that by international law Iran is not allowed to unilaterally confiscate a tanker as retaliation, so announcing that would be asking for condemnation, more sanctions or even a military reply. The UK would not feel to release Grace1 because it would look like it was being extorted.
There are international courts to (try to) reclaim Grace1, obviously in the delay there is great uncounted cost to Iran.
So Iran has found national law reasons to detain the UK tanker, it can extend those or even confiscate the tanker completely by them. To Iran this approach will have as much rational as what the UK/EU are doing. The UK can take it to international court also, and wait maybe years for a reply.

Posted by: gzon | Jul 20 2019 12:24 utc | 138

@ jiri 135
The EU (its member states) are allowed to pose whatever sanctions they like within their territory . They can deny entry to people of other nations for example, and arrest them if they enter.
The question is if they can apply sanctions in territorial waters to a ship in passage, or even one anchored while restocking food, the question is if they are or should be allowed to detain that vessel, just warn it, expel it or should simply allow passage.

Posted by: gzon | Jul 20 2019 12:35 utc | 139

@132 gzon

“I don’t think Iran is that pressured economically by sanctions.”

Economical and financial pressure of sanction is imminence. Do not be so naive. Imagine by sudden every LC for purchasing raw materials for your factories are frozen, even with Chinese banks. All bank accounts, even personal accounts are frozen and you can not touch your money. You have money in your account but you can not withdraw, you can not make a transaction, even in friendly country like China, let alone South Korea, Japan, India, etc.

Imagine the chaos on production, unemployment, then next wave of currency attack, your currency in few days devalued 300%, and so on.

What is happening in Iran is like a miracle, nobody was expecting to turn back the waves of attack successfully.

I do not think financial instrument in world history was  used so effectively to pressure a country. It was and is unprecedented. Such instrument was not available in WW2.

 

Posted by: arata | Jul 20 2019 12:42 utc | 140

gzon 138
They already announced the ship committed moving violations, turned off its GPS and ignored warnings. That’s plenty both for legalism and for the propaganda war. Adding more is overkill.

Posted by: Russ | Jul 20 2019 13:10 utc | 141

And of course I never said they should openly call it a reprisal, just make that implicitly clear. But the more so-called reasons they pile on, the more they blur that clarity.

Posted by: Russ | Jul 20 2019 13:12 utc | 142

@ arata 140
I don’t argue at all with what you are saying (except for being naive), the point I was making is that Iran itself as a country is not pressured to act with retaliation because of the effect of sanctions within the country . It is a big country, big enough to support itself if isolated to a degree. I don’t say that is good or easy that way (well I do in general say independence and self reliance is good). This leads to the reaction by Iran as being of a broader nature ( ethics, regional encroachment on it, the maintanance of allied nations). Though Syria is the most immediately threatened by the combined sanctions to my view, the intent behind sanctions on Iran is also very negative and so Iran also provides a visible rejection to that intent as it adapts itself. So far Iran has matched the US step for step, it has not initiated hostility, and it is gaining or securing ground this way, which is impressive. I know the US does not accept to openly lose, and it has chosen open confrontation now, so that is why I am not happy with the direction – I don’t think wars are a good solution so I hope this plays out to a better reason.

Posted by: gzon | Jul 20 2019 13:14 utc | 143

Life is good. All the Zionazis have been able to do to respond is via their propaganda organs, lol. This weekend we are all Iranians.

Posted by: Ralph Conner | Jul 20 2019 13:38 utc | 144

@ russ 142
“But the more so-called reasons they pile on, the more they blur that clarity.”
I agree, but then we are comparing what is western clarity, which is a well organised and widely pre-prepared narrative, and Iranian procedure or method.
Ask if in real world, if there were no confrontation as now, and Iran detained a tanker because it simply wanted to better patrol its seas , would the release of information be in stages, say as it investigated complaint before charging the tanker further.
You see our perception is tainted by prejudice maybe, should Iran take that into account to present to a western audience? Maybe, but that might not be true to what Iran is, so no.
The UK/EU/US may do this for Grace, by adding accusations, in fact they have – they later invoked seaworthiness, and might invoke non registry and even ownership as being by entities endebted by US law.

Posted by: gzon | Jul 20 2019 13:49 utc | 145

Formerly T-Bear @120: Please re-read the history of the period …
Did you use the link to Pat Lang’s post?
Also, the US cutting off oil supply to Japan has been discussed at MoA before.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jul 20 2019 14:00 utc | 146

If there were no pre-existing confrontation, Iran wouldn’t already be plunged into a full-blown propaganda war, where different communication dynamics apply.
The UK/EU/US may do this for Grace, by adding accusations, in fact they have – they later invoked seaworthiness, and might invoke non registry and even ownership as being by entities endebted by US law.
And to the extent they do that, won’t we all think that only confirms how bogus all their explanations are, and that this was piracy plain and simple?
The more reasons one piles on, the more it makes all one’s reasons look flimsy. That’s Argumentation 101.
we are comparing what is western clarity, which is a well organised and widely pre-prepared narrative, and Iranian procedure or method.
So Iranians lack clarity and organization where it comes to narrative? I admit, I’m always highly suspicious when a white Westerner (I think you said above you’re British) lectures on how differently the funny brown people think and talk and act. Not to mention how ridiculous it is to say Westerners are usually clear and well-organized, however much they think they are.

Posted by: Russ | Jul 20 2019 14:11 utc | 147

Putin has stated …
Posted by: Beibdnn. | Jul 20 2019 12:04 utc | 136
Citation, please.
Iran is not a member of CSTO, is it?
Russia’s Nuclear Umbrella
See if you can dig up anything besides this about a Russian Federation, Islamic Republic of Iran military defense treaty.
What I read recently was Putin stating something along the lines of including others under Russia’s “protection”.
Conjecture: The price of this “protection” will be a demand that Iran allow Russia a naval base in the Persian Gulf, and, to further allow Russia access to Iran’s air bases. Maybe the Russians will finally get their warm water port. (Was that why Iran’s “ally” said Da in UNSC over the clearly bogus “threat” of Iranian nuclear weapons that forced Iran to accept JCPOA?)
The problem with most of the commentary here is that you are generally ignorant of Iran’s history. (Thus the harping on ’53, helpfully repeating the propaganda of CIA, et al.)
Btw, speaking of ’53, now that China has 80% stake in Iran’s gas field project, would anyone care to guess the % of the stake that the Pirate Empire of England had that led to ’53?
And finally, what was the point of spinning those enrichment tubes by the bozos of IRI? Are these clowns all in together and using these geopolitical shows to distract us from the global Class War and the emerging global Surveillance States?

Posted by: Realist | Jul 20 2019 14:27 utc | 148

@143 gzon

My apology for using “naive” sentence addressing as direct personal  attack, I have been careless. Sorry about that.

Iran is a vast country with domestic resources, it is true, but that is not enough. In today world interdependence specially in banking and finance is necessary, when a country is bigger, dependency to outside world is more. A country like Russia and China, even India,  Brazil are bigger enough to withstand such attacks, but Iran is weaker, because institutions are not strong, unhealthy, mismanaged, corrupt.

Iran has no ally!

Syria has Iran as ally, but it is not other-way. Iran has layers of friendly countries. Not allies.

 

Posted by: arata | Jul 20 2019 14:35 utc | 149

For those interested: here are some of the break even points for the largest shale oil fracking operations for 2014-2016:
Shale oil breakeven at wellhead”
This is from an expert in the industry who works in the Texas offshore part of the oil industry – i.e. a shale oil competitor.
What is interesting is that costs are apparently a huge driver. When oil prices are high – the costs for everything escalate: drilling equipment, housing, fracking fluids etc. such that these companies were losing money at $100/barrel prices.

Posted by: c1ue | Jul 20 2019 14:36 utc | 150

T-bear @ 123
Correct on your points except for the first one. In the case of Very Large Vessels like tankers, and especially in areas with limited navigation like the SOH((ormuz), the tanker would have rights over the fishing boat even if at anchor. An anchored fishing boat in or near navigation channels must keep a watch and move if necessary.

Posted by: Bongbong | Jul 20 2019 14:51 utc | 151

@ arata 149
That is ok… anyway I am sure to be naive somewhere about something, people just don’t like to be called it directly 🙂 .
Complexity has many advantages, that includes in international trade where it creates an incentive towards peace between nations (out of self interest), but it also has its weaknesses (susceptibility to interruption and cascade effects).
I look at economics as something practical and structural, finance comes later. So the question is firstly if Iran is able to trade what it needs, if it can exchange oil for wheat for example. This is not finance but finding friendly nations that are not under the thumb of Iran’s enemies, which it can trade with. Western countries interrupting physical trade is criminal. To modernise a country, if that is seen as the better direction, takes time, but the reality is that life in western countries is not nescessarily much better than that in simpler countries (as long as most basic resources are achieved). The west is attractive and lively, but there is also a lot of misery and emptiness, I always feel better among simpler people, and they usually have a quiet certainty about themselves also.
Iran has no ally, yes I notice that, but then it is original and maybe purposefully its own. It does not mean people in the west don’t like Iran, it is more an unknown than anything. The problem is really that some countries choose to be its enemy 🙁 .

Posted by: gzon | Jul 20 2019 15:11 utc | 152

Russ @147
Yes gzon @ 145 is being Orientalist – a particular form of western racism focusing on what has constituted the east for the UK, FR and Germany (and the US). That “east” begins in Morocco and ends in China. Orientalism has been around – including as a university discipline – since the 18th century at least. The presumption behind it is, of course, that the western (educated, bourgeois) way of perceiving the world, of acting is rational, logical, well thought out, sensible etc. The Orient is not and does not.
Bernard Lewis was one of the greatest exponents of Orientalism of the later 20th and early 21st centuries. He was also an ardent Zionist.
Edward Said was a significant voice in exposing the racism of Orientalist “scholarship” and western thought and ensuing behavior toward Muslim and more easterly nations.

Posted by: AnneR | Jul 20 2019 15:18 utc | 153

Speedboats & helicopter assault: Iran shows footage of British tanker seizure (VIDEO)
https://www.rt.com/news/464652-iran-british-tanker-video/

Posted by: Virgile | Jul 20 2019 15:36 utc | 154

As to the legal aspect of the British piracy:
https://www.newsclick.in/uks-dubious-role-new-tanker-war-iran

In a new twist on this issue, we now know that Gibralter changed its law underpinning the seizure just one day before it occurred. This adds weight to reports in Spain quoting government sources that the UK carried out seizing of the tanker under US instructions.
The argument that Grace 1 was carrying crude oil to Syria’s Baniyas refinery, and so violating European Sanctions on Syria, sounds weak on various counts. The Gibralter Court’s order mentions EU Regulation 36/2012 on sanctions on Syria as the basis for action against Grace 1. Oil exports from Syria to the EU have been banned, but not oil imports to Syria under EU Regulations. Also, imports to Baniyas refinery are banned for machinery and equipment, not oil.
More important, in international trade, do countries through which transit takes place, have the right to impose their laws on the merchandise in transit?

Posted by: Peter Moritz | Jul 20 2019 15:58 utc | 155

Uncle Sam says that Iran sanctions don’t apply to food, except when they do:
Iran grain ships stuck in Brazil without fuel due to U.S. sanctions
Iran is one of Brazil’s largest customers for corn, etc. Uncle Sam’s actions won’t make many friends in Brazil, especially if commodity prices drop.
It appears US has declared war on the world. His actions remind me of a drug addict who steals especially from friends and family. Sometimes “tough love” is the only option left, but how does one tell a drunk, holding a grenade with no pin, to please leave the party?

Posted by: Trailer Trash | Jul 20 2019 16:10 utc | 156

@ Jackrabbit | Jul 20 2019 14:00 utc | 146
No I did not read Pat Lang’s post, I read your words and gave my reaction to them, not some entity in another place. My mistake. My perception that you were capable of sustaining your own argument without outside aid may need reassessment. Whatever prior discussion you were referring to is unknown to me and I have no idea as to its veracity or if it had any at all but you were starting to sound like history from Circe, a.k.a. no history at all, just opinion.

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Jul 20 2019 16:41 utc | 157

Widely suspected of being on the payroll of MI6, Simon Tisdall, who writes in the house organ of the UK’s Intelligence Community (‘The Guardian’) has a very interesting article today.
He blames Bolton for tricking the British government-in the throes of a leadership campaign and even more incapable than usual of making sensible decisions-into seizing the Grace and holding it at Gibraltar (jebel tariq).
If Tisdall is telling the truth it will be very unusual and a sign that The Establishment in Whitehall is split. That would be significant news because Tisdall rarely ends up on the minority side of ruling class disputes.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/20/britain-lured-into-deadly-trap-on-iran-by-trump-hawk-john-bolton

Posted by: bevin | Jul 20 2019 16:42 utc | 158

To me is is surprising that there have been no deaths yet in these tanker takeovers.
What happens if the West takes down an Iranian helicopter?
Will the public of the West ever wake up to the fact that this war we are in is to protect the elite ownership of global private finance? And furthermore, the non-West world is saying “Back down or face extinction response to any formidable strike on any of the protected non-West axis.
How many more moves before Checkmate?
Thanks for the posting and updates b

Posted by: psychohistorian | Jul 20 2019 16:46 utc | 159

Thanks AnneR @153
I had never studied this but just noted it from own experience in different countries, how people go about their lives in different ways. The west is very formatted and believes in its own format as absolute. Other countries don’t see or feel this, so a contract based on that format is seen as much as the start of negotiations or encounter, not the end of those. Somewhere in that is the attempt to create obligation on another and justify own superiority if not, but that seems to have become a means to an end in itself. Finance is a main tool used, but there is the background division of understanding that you mention that is ever present. In the middle-east borders are quite superficial, they are new invention, where previously it was loyalty of population that marked the bounds between rulers. So everything is in a way personal, you take my ship and I will take yours, these are our waters or waters of the region and nothing to do with you and your laws.
These differences lead to trouble, and the west knows how to stir up the other but look like being right to own population . So now with the ship is the question of it being detained in Oman waters. There is no justification in western or international law for Iran to do this, so it will be painted as being in the wrong, and the UK/EU as being in the right. This gives more support in the west for the west to impose its way or will on Iran. It is wrong though,if only because we had no good justification to detain Grace1 in the first place.
I don’t know where these arguments end, but I have the feeling that the west is doing all it can to emphasise them, and it is quite clear that leads to conflict.

Posted by: gzon | Jul 20 2019 16:48 utc | 160

@ Bongbong | Jul 20 2019 14:51 utc | 151
Most readers here have little exposure or knowledge of seamanship and what is required to know. You are correct that a very large vessel does have limitations on its ability to manoeuvre, smaller craft having full ability to manoeuvre are expected to see to their own wellbeing when so confronted, even in restricted channels, but these are fine points to the general rule. The problem is that the fishing vessel in the act of fishing may NOT have the ability to manoeuvre and is so designated by lights at night or by all-round visible signals diurnally, even if this happens in a restricted shipping channel, its position is protected. Common sense suggests keeping clear of vessels having limited manoeuvrability but usually there isn’t enough world supply of that to meet all needs. In a narrow channel there is usually still enough room for even a large loaded vessel to avoid collision. These situations become the bread and butter for admiralty courts to determine when things settle. Good thing that.

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Jul 20 2019 17:06 utc | 161

Many speak of details, about weapons and rules and the men of low character and of emotional matters. This makes a deception.
The large scale fact is the Empire is a matter of economies and of power.
Subsequent to this fact the reality actually driving the affair between Iran and the Anglosaxon Empire is, consists of, precisely one matter.
This matter is the question of whether or not the Anglosaxon Empire can continue as Iran and Eurasia integrate and become modern – in a classical way the world can be ruled by controlling the seas (thalassocracy) so long as this land-based integration can be prevented. OBOR et sec is the popular term for the integration…
Since the Anglosaxon Empire has mismanaged itself as a result of moral decay, and since their method is essentially to loot Heartland realms, integration has occurred.
Alas, therefore Persia must be smashed. This will result in smash of all the M.E. petro-structures, for years…for years no ME juice to Europe….think about that…
Of course this will make Europe a vassal due to the destruction of the middle eastern oil system – either a vassal of Russian fuel, or of American frakfuel… A vassal of either Russia or of Sam…
Obviously the Russian juice is reliable and cheap. Also obviously the juice for Sam is not…
Therefore, after Iran, Russia…
Nazis never give up….do they?
The Ruskies claim they defeated Fascism…but they’re wrong…the nazis wear all sorts of costumes…they’re gunna havta doit again…
Persia, and Russia, have been around a long time, brother…
This does suggest an outcome unfavorable to, uh, “Sam”

Posted by: Walter | Jul 20 2019 17:17 utc | 162

@159 Very interesting. Of course Tisdall is on safe ground blaming Bolton ( rather than Trump) but he shouldn’t be letting the British government, such as it is currently, off the hook. Somebody knew very well what was happening in Gibraltar and somebody approved it.

Posted by: dh | Jul 20 2019 17:58 utc | 163

Not the smartest on holding the tanker with Russians. If anything Iran should only hold UK citizens, ships as a response to UK similar acts.

Posted by: Zanon | Jul 20 2019 18:21 utc | 164

Posted by: gzon | Jul 19 2019 19:21 utc | 20

Well as a Brit, I can only add that it does seem to be the case. We are under some very strange influence and have been for quite a while.

I think this is the result of a long exposure to Zionist-controlled media.

Posted by: foolisholdman | Jul 20 2019 18:36 utc | 165

The Anglo Americans specialize in projecting their own malevolent national traits onto whatever country they are targeting–in this case, Iran.
This is fundamental to Anglo American “values”–which are about deception and deceit–and NOT freedom, democracy, human rights, rule of law, blah, blah, blah.
Indeed, Anglo Liberal Democracy™ as a system is a deception of world historical proportions. It is a lie upon which America, Britain, and other Anglo colonizer nations are based as nations.
The Anglo Americans thus accuse Iran of illegally seizing the ‘Stena Impero’ tanker–while piously and self-righteously proclaiming their moral and legal right to pirate Iran’s “Grace 1” tanker last month.
Apparently, the Anglo Americans have never heard of the phrase: Getting a taste of your own medicine.
What’s more, the Anglo American pretext for holding the Grace 1 tanker is itself morally illegitimate in that it putatively involves enforcing a cowardly form of economic siege warfare against Syria as a way to regime change and destabilize that nation for having the gall to fight back against the Anglo-Americans’ beloved moderate jihadists and pro-democracy head-choppers!
The Anglo Americans are truly a very sick and demented people. This is true not only for the Anglo American ruling classes but also their people as well–across the political spectrum from the supposed “left wing” to supposed “right wing.”
To top it off, the Anglo Americans imagine other nations are just as perverse as they are.
The Anglo Americans’ ultimate fear is this: that they will (deservedly) reap all the misery and pain that they have sown around the world.
The ‘Stena Impero’ tanker seizure is just a very small foretaste of what they fear is coming for them.

Posted by: AK74 | Jul 20 2019 18:48 utc | 166

It would seem to me that Iran is playing itself into trumps tiny hands.
He will get the war that mic and zionists so badly crave, but will not be of his doing.
Placing americans in harms way in Saudi.

Posted by: jared | Jul 20 2019 18:49 utc | 167

123#,
Thank you Formerly T-Bear for your quick and clear explanation!
It is interesting to see that more those situations develop,more we can see that the Iranian side keeps on playing on the side of the law and legality.Although those background reasons (collision with fishing boat,transponders being silenced etc) don’t make it to the MSM ,a large public around the world is aware of the patience and finesse that Iran is showing in his treats,contrasting with the bullying language and poor scenarisation of the US/UK part.

Posted by: willie | Jul 20 2019 19:02 utc | 168

Posted by: gzon | Jul 20 2019 16:48 utc | 160
I don’t know where these arguments end, but I have the feeling that the west is doing all it can to emphasis them, and it is quite clear that leads to conflict.
Throughout the history of humanity, one constant is racism breeds both ignorance and violence.
Posted by: Walter | Jul 20 2019 17:17 utc | 162
This does suggest an outcome unfavorable to, uh, “Sam”
I agree with your post, Walter, uncle sam’s painted himself into one tight corner this time. Gonna have to either mar the flooring, or admit to their humiliating error.

Posted by: aye, myself & me | Jul 20 2019 20:13 utc | 169

The Persians may have miscalculated a little. They are straining to export oil to augment their budget.
Iran’s Crude Oil Exports: What Minimum Is Enough to Stay Afloat?
From the reading of this Atlantic Council article the key would be to reduce their oil exports to zero to obtain maximum leverage. There are not many options left for the US and Britain to enact economically. Even the EU appears to be backing away from throttling Iran.
They have no deep water navy. Now the US and Britain have an excuse to nab any Iranian tanker on the high seas and impound the vessel. The West is expert and well equipped to take on those types of operations. Turning off the beacon helps but the West has the technology to follow tankers if they want to focus on that issue.
They can seize tankers, impound the oil, sell the oil, or just park it at sea. Who is going to even put a deposit down on a shipment at a guaranteed price if they do not know if their tanker is going to be seized by the West?
The US and Brittan can get along without using the Persian Gulf. That leaves Iran to impounding the vessels of other nations. There are plenty of places to obtain oil and the market will not be that greatly affected. The first tanker war proved that as that is what happened.
Iran is limited to the Persian gulf. Iran can seize tankers of the Sunni nations in the region and hold them but when the rest of the world loses their very important commodities coming out of the Gulf they will lose a great deal of sympathy. The other oil producing nations in the region also have other avenues of income and other exports methods to keep cash flowing.
This tanker war may be one of tanker piracy on the high seas. Maybe they are hoping for a straight up swap of tankers so both sides can save face? Sort of like Trump asking to bomb some sand dunes in Iran to save face.
In the end all we can do is speculate on the empire.

Posted by: dltravers | Jul 20 2019 20:18 utc | 170

@ 165 foolisholdman
I really wonder. There have been so many influences on the UK over the last several decades but you can pick out different essences among them, some which are outside of any particular theme or event, that cover various of those, or periods of time, but don’t seem to have an obvious origin. I say strange… I notice it really stand out because I spend years away and so the change is really obvious between visits, I guess living in UK not so much except to the more senior people who remember well how UK was before. I find UK disturbing now so am just thankful for being abroad, but same sort of thing is going on in various countries, to a lesser degree than English speaking ones.

Posted by: gzon | Jul 20 2019 20:32 utc | 171

@171 Times have changed. Mrs. Thatcher wouldn’t put up with this nonsense would she? I’m struck by the lukewarm response from the British press compared with say the Falkland Island affair.
And Jeremy Hunt looks particularly wishy-washy. He made the standard speech…’totally unacceptable’ “Iran must reverse course’ ‘international law’ etc. etc. but I get the impression his heart isn’t really in it. He must realise that seizing the Grace in Gibraltar was a major mistake and now he’s in a hole.

Posted by: dh | Jul 20 2019 21:26 utc | 172

Iran is not limited to the Persian Gulf. It also borders on the Caspian Sea. And haven’t the Chinese just opened a rail connection to Tehran?

Posted by: lysias | Jul 20 2019 21:27 utc | 173

RT is reporting that BA and Lufthansa have suspended flights to Cairo for 7 days citing security concerns. What does it mean/foretell?

Posted by: the pessimist | Jul 20 2019 21:43 utc | 174

the Brits and the US are being taught many a good lesson by Iran…
and all the world is both watching and learning

Posted by: michaelj72 | Jul 20 2019 22:04 utc | 175

@ dh 172
Pre-Blair politicians wouldn’t mess around playing these sort of games, I think you have to go back to WW to find UK so meddling or indecisive at this level? After invasion of Iraq something of UK moral was lost and it is replaced with different methods, IMHO.
Many modern politicians seem managed, or not in charge of their choices. The press is now saying that UK will announce new sanctions for the detention of Stena, so this seems to be being used to take the UK more in line with US, saying UK might pressure for EU or UN sanctions also on Iran.

Posted by: gzon | Jul 20 2019 23:17 utc | 176

When Zarif said there’d be more interviews to watch, he wasn’t lying. Here’s his PBS interview:
“‘The people and government of Iran have nothing against the American people. All we want is for no one to interfere in our internal affairs.’
“My interview with @NewsHour’s @JudyWoodruff in New York on July 19th, prior to my departure for Venezuela.”
Zarif elaborates further:
“US #EconomicTerrorism is a global menace.
“I’m in Venezuela to attend #NAM meeting geared to forge global response to unilateralism.
“In Iran’s engagement with the world, we neither call for the ouster of leaders, nor ‘bolster’ them—decisions that are for the PEOPLE of a nation.”
That the Non-Aligned Movement’s meeting in Venezuela clearly signals that Maduro’s recognized as the legitimate President as is his government. Yet further repudiation of the Venezuela coup attempt.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jul 20 2019 23:22 utc | 177

@176 There was nothing indecisive about Mrs. Thatcher. Not saying she made the right decision when Saddam moved into Kuwait but she’s the one who got Bush Sr. to act. ‘This is no time to go wobbly George’ she said or something like that. Got to wonder what she’s think of Donald.

Posted by: dh | Jul 20 2019 23:30 utc | 179

Zarif met with Paul on the 18th. The article shows the USG cannot get beyond its lie-filled narrative, Paul also giving it support. The following provides an idea of Paul’s mindset:
“‘I think diplomacy is a good idea, and I think that if sanctions are to work, you also have to talk about removing them,’ Paul said. ‘So I think the discussion now, since we have maximum pressure on and maximum sanctions on Iran, now we have to say what would we be willing to remove them for.'”
Be interesting to know what other USG officials he met with.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jul 21 2019 0:05 utc | 180

@ 179 dh
Yes, I was talking of invasion of Iraq 2003 which was contrived. The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq as far as I make out was more US/Saudi conspiracy (if there was one). I still don’t know why Kuwait took up slant drilling but it would surprise me if UK wanted to hand Kuwait to US hegemony with invasion as part of the deal. Kuwait had funded the Iraq Iran war, which I think was more US inspired than UK, so the debts Iraq owed Kuwait after (war funding) were tied into a kind of US framework, and those debts were part of the reason Iraq invaded Kuwait. The UK was there obviously, but if they were active they were quiet about it, until Iraq took Kuwait and the rest, the slow push against Iraq after Kuwait was retaken, and then taking part in invading in 2003, is history as they say. Since retaking Kuwait the UK fell in line behind/with US policy, and the invasion of Iraq was total submission to US policy. Since then nothing has been the same in UK politics, like a different direction and way has been embedded. Just my view of it all, fwiw.

Posted by: gzon | Jul 21 2019 0:22 utc | 181

@186 Various factors. Slant drilling as you mention, also refusal to let Iraq use Babiyan island, mixed messages from April Glaspie and lots of Kuwaiti money in London banks.
The second Iraq War was more to do with Bush Jr. and his advisers convincing him he had unfinished business with Saddam. The UK fell in line but I don’t think Blair needed much arm twisting. I think if you want a catalyst for changing UK politics you don’t need to look further than Tony Blair.

Posted by: dh | Jul 21 2019 0:40 utc | 182

Here’s Magnier’s latest. Besides a recap, he provides what his source says are Khamenei’s Three Salient Points regarding Iran’s security and a response to Pompeo’s 12-points:
“1 – Adherence to Iran’s right to nuclear enrichment and everything related to this science at all costs. Nuclear enrichment is a sword Iran can hold in the face of the West, which wants to take it from Tehran. It is Iran’s card to obstruct any US intention of “obliterating” Iran.
“2 – Continue to develop Iran’s missile capability and ballistic programs. This is Iran’s deterrent weapon that prevents its enemies from waging war against it. Sayyed Ali Khamenei considers the missile program a balancing power to prevent harm against Iran.
“3 – Support Iran’s allies in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, and never abandon them, because they are essential Iran’s national security.”
Most of the above was already known so its publication isn’t a breech of security. Rather, it tells the Outlaw US Empire what won’t be negotiated. Magnier’s warning in his conclusion is pretty clear.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jul 21 2019 0:49 utc | 183

@182 And how could I forget BP…..my employers once upon a time.

Posted by: dh | Jul 21 2019 0:49 utc | 184

I can’t find who provided the link below and am sorry for that
That said, it describes the seizure more fully
IRGC spokesman says British tanker escorted by a warship
It seems the UK warship escort had two helicopters in the air and were still unable to stop the boarding
It also reports that the ship was trying to use the exit lane to enter the Straits of Hormuz the wrong way
Speaks clearly to poor seamanship or conscious perfidy…..or both

Posted by: psychohistorian | Jul 21 2019 0:54 utc | 185

@ dh 182
Yep. I don’t have the link but there was an interesting OPEC failed meeting a short while before Iraq invaded, the Saudis gave a big insult (the question was overproduction that was hurting Iraq income). Every detail I look at and Iraq was being pushed and excluded, either that was arrogance and stupidity by Saudi and Kuwait, or someone actually wanted a war…maybe both, with US egging it on.
But after Kuwait the show went into isolating Iraq, bad press, wmd, and the UK tagged along with that, came Blair and containment became invasion. 9/11 had some odd effect on the US psyche as well, or was used for that, but Blair was all in, and still is as far as I make out. How come UK hasn’t found its way out of that since though, it is like it is pinned in, like few UK politicians can stand straight anymore. Blair wrote in volumes of new law and turned UK very security, maybe he is still in charge in legacy sort of way. Later Tories though haven’t put anything much back on any track, I see a lot of floundering and privilege and being too tied in to foreign influence of one kind or another.

Posted by: gzon | Jul 21 2019 1:07 utc | 186

@186 Don’t forget too that Iraq and Iran had just ended a devastating war. Saddam felt that Kuwait and Saud owed him something for that and what did he get? Slant drilling and a reduced market for oil from Basra. Of course the Israelis hated Saddam for supporting Palestinians. WMD became a hot issue, inspections led to war.
I never quite understood Blair’s appeal but I assume that as the British working class became more affluent Labour and the Tory policies got harder to tell apart.

Posted by: dh | Jul 21 2019 1:20 utc | 187

good thing I’ve been refreshing my Dari and Farsi language skills

Posted by: jerichocheyenne | Jul 21 2019 1:45 utc | 188

@ dh 184
Life is funny, my uncle was high in BP management, not Iraq as far as I remember. He is still consultancy. That is another level and another world though.
Kuwait a week before Iraq invaded and I ask a friend while sat at Messila beach, how come the frigates and choppers today… he explains… couple days later we are on a flight out arranged by parents, a week later he is hostage… I get a “hapoy hostage” Christmas card from him eventually…he was released and left society…a Sabbah I knew got fubared…others killed including Iraqis obviously. I could go on about more but it isn’t fun…just to say that here in the west we have no idea what goes on there means, none.
Blair had some kind of charisma, I fell for it at start (just in terms of thinking he was ok), modern more affluent working class appeal as you say. I could profile him now in terms of his political connections maybe, but for average people he was innocent looking clean idead and good at talking, at persuading. Catholic and that tied to Spain participation somehow I think. What went on behind, what he represented in practice, is something else, definitely not authored by his own hand, he just presented it all well.

Posted by: gzon | Jul 21 2019 2:09 utc | 189

(And I know Blair converted later to Catholicism, but his connection and orientation towards go back. I have nothing against Catholicism and spend a lot if time in strongly Catholic countries, but there are lines of influence and that exist within religion , and that is what I meant to point out)

Posted by: gzon | Jul 21 2019 2:20 utc | 190

@189 Maybe Kuwait is different now but those Sabahs were a funny bunch. They built palaces in the desert but preferred to live in tents. I remember driving around in big air-conditioned cars full of cash. Some good memories of Basra….picnics by the Euphrates…..beer was no problem.
Blair I dunno….smooth talker, ambitious….maybe he believed it all himself.

Posted by: dh | Jul 21 2019 3:06 utc | 191

I can’t say more about the Sabah, I think you know how that is.
What I remember about Kuwait before the war is how easy going it was. We used to smuggle in whisky as kids, and get waved through customs , some came from Iraq. Later… it was a party just about every night, friendly expat crowd who arranged in turns, sometimes it would be locals. Occasionally we would hold very big parties, a couple hundred people or more, the brew would be fetched, ethanol mixed. We went for a walk mad max fancy dress once, got stoned by a small crowd.
Bill, a retired army old friendly who lived in servants quarters hand painting detail on mansions.
Kubah island, full of terns, a kuwaiti driving his speedboat fast between those anchored to show off, then into the side of one up to the cockpit.
A lot of good memories, before the war.
After it changed, maybe it is ok now, but a long time since I had contact now.
Maybe with Blair it was just the direction life gave him, but he has moved past that now to try to reinforce his point and make a stand of some kind. It doesn’t suit him to put it lightly.
Anyway, I’m getting called a troll now on the next thread, by the enlightened few :/ …keeps me entertained I suppose :).

Posted by: gzon | Jul 21 2019 4:27 utc | 192

@Kadath | Jul 19 2019 18:39 utc | 8
John Bolton must be deliriously happy now he has his casus belli for war with Iran and Englands government will now be totally helpless to resist joining the US in their doomed crusade as no one campaigning for the prime minister post will want to look weak in Iran
Perhaps. It’s true that Bolton probably thinks any minor faux pas, such as accidentally dropping a paper clip, is an excuse for an attack. If Iran had been so rash as to retaliate immediately for the confiscation of the Grace 1, Bolton could have ignited the war he so clearly wants. But Iran wisely delayed, allowing time for the realization to sink in everywhere that Britain’s piracy of the Grace 1 was criminal. So now most countries will simply think that the Steno Impero’s arrest was justified turnabout, that the Brits deserved the kick in the rear.

Posted by: Cyril | Jul 21 2019 4:33 utc | 193

When the British military pirated the ‘Grace 1’ it also used a helicopter to bring its Marine commandos on board. Iran now demonstrated that it can act on the same operational level.
This was not the same level at all, Iran took it up to a much higher level by rapidly carrying out the boarding right under the nose of a British military ship and too fast for that ship to react. Are the British even CAPABLE of performing such a manoeuver?
(Not to mention the most important difference: the British move was an act of pure piracy, while the Iranian one was a legitimate response to multiple violations of the law by the tanker including allegedly a hit and run attack on an Iranian fishing boat and ignoring it’s distress signal.)

Posted by: BM | Jul 21 2019 6:14 utc | 194

“The capture was too fast for the British military ship to react.”
Cut the British some slack, they are merely following the proud US military heritage of abandoning US civilians in Yemen back in 2015.

Posted by: Jonathan | Jul 21 2019 7:02 utc | 195

Have any noticed how silent Bolton, Pompimpo and the usual suspects in the swamp have been of late?
Have they gotten an order to stifle? one wonders if this be the quiet before storm?

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Jul 21 2019 8:10 utc | 196

Well, in spite of Twitter suspending irani media accounts, we are able today to know that piracy against Iran tankers started well before the capture of the Grace 1 in the Strait of Gibrlatar by UK Marines.
It just started at the very moment the elimination of the exemptions on the purchase of Irani oil were put in practice by the US, At that moment, an Irani oil tanker, Happiness I, belonging to the NIOC ( Iranian National Oil Company ) navigating towards the Suez Canal suffered a water filtration in the machine room as a result of which had to be redirected to the port of Jeddah in KSA for reparations works.
After being repaired and dutifully payed the due port stay and works expenses, it was forbidden to leave the port by Saudi authorities who, moreover, had asked Iran for 200k$ for every addtional day of “hostage” the tanker had passed unwillingly at Jeddah port, so far two months and a half, in a clear intend of extortion on Irani National Oil Company ( NIOC )to which the tanker belongs.
The Iranian media reported yesterday that the Happiness I with its 26 crew members on board, along with two other Persian ships sent to Jeddah to escort the tanker, is sailing back to the Persian waters…..

Posted by: Sasha | Jul 21 2019 11:08 utc | 197

Here we go again,
Twitter suspends accounts of Iranian media outlets
https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2019/07/21/601454/Twitter-Iran-accounts-media-outlets-IRNA-Mehr-YJC
Twitter is ruled under CIA?

Posted by: Zanon | Jul 21 2019 11:59 utc | 198

Arata,
As an Iranian, can you comment on the logic of the first of the three “commandments” described by Magnier?
1 – Adherence to Iran’s right to nuclear enrichment and everything related to this science at all costs. Nuclear enrichment is a sword Iran can hold in the face of the West, which wants to take it from Tehran. It is Iran’s card to obstruct any US intention of “obliterating” Iran.
The principle of sovereignty is intrinsically of paramount importance to the integrity and well-being of a nation. Once a nation’s leaders are knowingly prepared to accept an irreversible deterioration of the principle of its sovereignty, they are on a slippery slope which puts the entirety of that sovereignty at risk. The inalienable right of Iran to conduct a peaceful nuclear programme is enshrined in international law and in the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the US attempts to deny Iran this right is a serious violation of Iran’s sovereignty; it would also be a permanent loss: once Iran had lost that right, it is inconceivable that she would ever recoup that loss.
Is Khamenei saying any more than this? Why does he claim that it is “a sword Iran can hold in the face of the West”? And in particular, why does he claim that it is a card that is capable to “obstruct any US intention of “obliterating” Iran”? Should it be understood in the context of Sun Tzu’s maxim that in war deception is crucial to everything, and therefore that Iran would be prepared to use nuclear weapons in retaliation against any country that uses them against Iran? (This would not entail that Khamenei’s religious decree against nuclear weapons would be an outright lie, but that the decree was limited in scope to unilateral first use, and that that limitation was necessarily obscured according to the principles of Sun Tzu – which would be a reasonable geostrategic position to adopt. Gaddhafi, after all, was murdered and his country obliterated shortly after he renounced his nuclear weapons programme. Kim Jong Un, in contrast, was finally after 70 years able to secure meaningful dialogue with the US only after successfully testing nuclear weapons).
A further twist to the Sun Tzu interpretation would be that Khamenei’s decree against nuclear weapons was in fact absolute, but that by leaving strategic uncertainty over the possibility (at some stage in time, not necessarily now) that Iran has nuclear weapons, any potential aggressor would refrain from using nuclear weapons against her for fear of nuclear retaliation.

Posted by: BM | Jul 21 2019 12:39 utc | 199

@ Sasha | 197
Thank you for the info!
Seems to me Iran has indeed bigger problems than many here would be willing to admit.
In line with what you’re saying, there are presently as much as 4 big Iranian freight ships anchored off the coast of Brazil. They are stuck there because Brazil’s state-controlled Petrobras won’t sell them any fuel for the return trip. You can guess the reason why they won’t. I wonder if Venezuela could come to the rescue here?

Posted by: Scotch Bingeington | Jul 21 2019 12:50 utc | 200