International News
See other International News Articles
Title: British navy to Iran: Back the hell off
Source:
HotAir
URL Source: https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morr ... itish-navy-iran-back-hell-off/
Published: Jul 11, 2019
Author: Ed Morissey
Post Date: 2019-07-11 12:09:36 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 15507
Comments: 89
Do the Iranians want a war? They nearly got one overnight, not with the US but with the United Kingdom. The British navy aimed its guns on several Iranian ships attempting to block passage through the Strait of Hormuz of a British oil tanker, which caused the smaller ships to retreat: A British navy ship, the HMS Montrose, “was forced to position herself between the Iranian vessels and [the tanker] British Heritage and issue verbal warnings to the Iranian vessels, which then turned away,” the British government said in a statement. “We are concerned by this action and continue to urge the Iranian authorities to de-escalate the situation in the region,” the statement said. Last month, the Iranians shot down a US drone operating in international airspace, which nearly prompted a military strike in retaliation. The Iranians have now apparently either shifted their focus or broadened it, also in retaliation. The UK seized a Panamanian oil tanker carrying Iranian crude off the coast of Gibraltar, accusing Tehran of violating EU sanctions by selling oil to Syria’s Bashar al-Assad. Iran called it “an act of piracy” and threatened “consequences” for the seizure. This seems to be the UK’s reminder that even consequences have further consequences. For the moment, anyway, the Iranians got the message. However, they clearly want to start a fight in the Strait of Hormuz with someone, even though it’s becoming clearer that the US and the UK are willing to shoot back now after the attacks on other shipping in the Hormuz area. Iran may not have much choice. Their economy is collapsing again under the weight of US sanctions, and their population is growing restive. The Trump administration announced yesterday that more sanctions are coming now that Iran has openly admitted breaking past the restrictions on uranium enrichment: The United States called an emergency meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna on Wednesday in response to the Iranian moves, while a senior French envoy was in Tehran exploring ways to reopen negotiations on compliance with the deal. Iran called this “warfare“: Iran’s representative to international organizations in Vienna, Kazem Gharib Abadi, told a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency Wednesday U.S. actions were “neither legitimate nor legal” and should not be accepted by the international community. He says that the “costly” consequences of American sanctions mean “they should be seen as weapons of warfare.” Iran had better be careful before they find out what warfare actually would look like against the US and UK. They’ve been testing Western responses in the Hormuz area for some time, and the British navy gave the Iranians something to think about. If the mullahs are getting nervous about the misery of their population, then they should rethink their nuclear and ballistic missile programs as well as their support for Iranian proxy terror networks in the region. Poster Comment: When the British allies on the British protectorate of Gibralter stopped the Iranian tanker illegally bound for Syria last week, Iran's leader vowed revenge on Britain, suggesting that Iran would seize a British tanker in retaliation. Britain did lawfully interdict a contraband oil shipment destined for Syria contrary to international agreements. Well, Iran tried to seize a Brit tanker and Britain made it clear they aren't going to be victims of Iranian piracy in the Strait of Hormuz. They sent Iran a message. I think they should have punctuated it with sinking one or more of the three Iranian ships to make their point to Iran even clearer. But that will be the next step if Iran tries something like this again.
Three Iranian vessels attempted to stop a British tanker traveling through the Strait of Hormuz, Britain said Thursday, in the latest escalation between Iran and Western powers in recent weeks. The United States on Wednesday accused Iran of “nuclear extortion” and threatened further sanctions against Tehran, which has begun stockpiling and enriching uranium beyond the limits set in the 2015 accord that President Trump has abandoned. Iran says it’s prepared to return to “full implementation” of its landmark 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, but only when matched by the full compliance of “all participants.” …
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 20.
#2. To: Tooconservative (#0)
The UK, Britain or England. It is always the same. They drag us into a war the populace does not want, for reasons not clear and we send our best and brightest to die. It is time to bring our troops home from nearly everywhere. We have over how many bases in foreign countries? 100? Think of the money we could use to rebuild America, put up a proper wall, high speed rail coast to coast in more than one place. Maybe we could lower spending by TRILLIONS?
Britain interdicted an Iranian tanker that was illegally attempting to deliver oil to Bashar Assad. The U.N. has authorized such interdictions as part of their policy. Iran, furiously, threatened to grab a British tanker. The Brits defended their tankers and made the Iranians look silly. And the U.S. wasn't involved either time. Nor did it cost the Brits anything since they already have their naval presence in the Straits of Hormuz and at Gibraltar. The Iranian regime is near collapse. There will be no war with UK/US. And Iran will have no nukes and no missiles to threaten US/EU/Israel/Saudis. I want the mullahs of Iran driven from power and put on trial.
I do not believe it is true that the shipment was "illegal". That's the rub. The sanctions are not UN based. Russia has veto power in the UN and would not have ever gone along with it. They appear to be, at best, EU and US based, neither of which Iran or Syria are a legal party to and in which they have no representation. Given that framework, this is much more akin to a dozen city thugs telling a few residents in a community that they can't visit with one another. Or if you prefer, a majority of voters voting away the rights of the minority. Or 3 wolves and a sheep voting on dinner. Take your pick. The seizure of Iran's tanker (or its crude, at least, as it seems the tanker was Panamanian) is what was illegal, no matter what the EU or US might say otherwise.
Okay. So you think of the US and the UK and the EU as thugs. And Iran are the Good Guys. I don't care if Russia or anyone else supplies Assad with oil. But not Iran. I don't want to see a Shi'a crescent across Syria/Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan with a supporting worldwide terror network, backed by Iranian mullahs and their nuclear weapons.
I'd like to see Israel reigned in. The country that attacked the USS Liberty to goad the US into the 67 war, and very possibly had advance knowledge of 911 but said nothing -- why would they when the political response to it was so very much in their favor?
I've seen the allegations, pretty thin on evidence. Anyway, I don't think Israel poses the kind of direct threat to anyone in the region that a country like Iran does, situated as it is next to the Gulf of Hormuz where so much oil traffic passes. And Iran does operate an extensive terror network across the region. Every country in the region is afraid of them. Syria's Assad would like to get rid of the Iranians and the Russians also don't like the rise of Iran as a dominant regional power. And Israel isn't the cause of the Iranian nuke program anyway. Iran dawdled along for decades after Israel got nukes before Iran started their own nuke program, probably following their observance of the North Korean nuclear program. The Norks and the Iranian mullahs are allies. It's clear that the Iranians had a lot of help in their missile and nuclear program from the Kim regime in North Korea. We need a containment policy across the Mideast and Asia. Especially with Iran and North Korea.
Perhaps you mean advance 911 knowledge. On the USS Liberty, they absolutely did attack it, and if you listen to some interviews of the survivors....
I accept that the Liberty should be remembered. But should we, for instance, continue to obsess over the capture of the Pueblo by North Korea, with the capture and torturous confinement of over 80 American sailors. Trying to see policy toward Israel or North Korea as being defined by the Liberty or the Pueblo naval incidents of the 1960's is perhaps not the most constructive way to conduct foreign policy. As much as those things will ever be resolved, they have been resolved. They are officially closed matters. Our relations with North Korea and Israel can't be focused on naval incidents from 50 years ago.
There are no replies to Comment # 20. End Trace Mode for Comment # 20.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#6. To: jeremiad (#2)
The UK, Britain or England. It is always the same. They drag us into a war the populace does not want, for reasons not clear and we send our best and brightest to die.
#8. To: Tooconservative (#6)
Britain interdicted an Iranian tanker that was illegally attempting to deliver oil to Bashar Assad. The U.N. has authorized such interdictions as part of their policy.
#10. To: Pinguinite (#8)
They appear to be, at best, EU and US based, neither of which Iran or Syria are a legal party to and in which they have no representation. Given that framework, this is much more akin to a dozen city thugs telling a few residents in a community that they can't visit with one another.
#12. To: Tooconservative (#10)
I don't want to see a Shi'a crescent across Syria/Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan with a supporting worldwide terror network, backed by Iranian mullahs and their nuclear weapons.
#15. To: Pinguinite (#12)
The country that attacked the USS Liberty to goad the US into the 67 war, and very possibly had advance knowledge of 911
#18. To: Tooconservative (#15)
I've seen the allegations, pretty thin on evidence.
#20. To: Pinguinite (#18)
On the USS Liberty, they absolutely did attack it, and if you listen to some interviews of the survivors....
Replies to Comment # 20.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]