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: 15532
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 # 22.
#1. To: Tooconservative (#0)
The real hypocrisy here, as I see it, is that the EU/UK/US have already declared war on Iran via crippling sanction and now seizing an Iranian tanker. Seizing the foreign property of another country is called piracy when it's done by a non-state entity, and war when it's done by a state entity. What is the hell is Iran supposed to do? There is no deal in place. Trump, who wrote a book called "The Art of the Deal" is clearly not attempting to create a new deal to replace the one he pulled out of. Iran is obviously technologically advanced enough to make nuclear material and nuclear bombs but no one wants to talk to them about it. At the same time, Iran is supposed to respect sanctions imposed by a bunch of foreign countries on Syria but the EU is NOT supposed to respect sanctions that Iran might want to impose on the UK. This is lawlessness upon the part of the EU. Iran is not provoking. They are being provoked. War has been declared upon Iran. It's just not a hot war yet. The west is simply making life miserable for Iran enough to compel them into firing the first shot. The only way out of this for Iran is for them to create a nuclear weapon. Once they do that, then the US/UK/EU will be forced to actually negotiate, and/or realize that continuing to sanction a new nuclear power is more dangerous than not. Pakistan has nukes, but they aren't getting sanctioned. And Iran will have nukes eventually. There's no stopping that.
Iran is supposed to renounce nuclear weapons, make peace with Israel and stop givi g givi giving financial support to terrorist militias. Those are the terms for peace. We, in turn, will lift all sanctions. Iran will never be permitted to develop nuclear weapons, not ever. We will l launch airstrikes on their facilities before they get there.
We, in turn, will lift all sanctions. Iran will never be permitted to develop nuclear weapons, not ever. We will l launch airstrikes on their facilities before they get there. I believe they have already stated they are not interested in nuke weapons. How much peace Israel is interested in is questionable, and certainly Israel is an aggressive country itself. How much support they give to "terrorist militias" is also questionable as it seems Israel is the primary intelligence agency making the claim. No, I think it's unlikely the Iranians will ever be treated as an equal country. Sanctions won't be lifted without an agreement, and there is no interest from the west in any agreement. We dictate to Iran, "no nukes" and expect them to obey. But it's doubtful that anyone will ever believe Iran has abandoned them no matter what they do or don't do. I for one don't trust Israel as far as I could throw it, and Israel has nukes enough to keep Iran in line. The hardliners greatly desire to control what Iran does and see that as the only solution. It won't work. Iran cannot be invaded as unlike Iraq, there is no border country that is likely to permit itself to be a staging area. Without that, an Omaha Beach style sea invasion is required. I do not believe Iran attacked the tankers, but on the drone, it's a toss up as to whether it violated Iran airspace. Iran may have wanted to prove its air defense capabilities by shooting down an aircraft that was 11 miles high and if so, it was an adequate demonstration. A weak point for the US is the ability to stomach casualties, and a manned air strike into Iran may prove a political disaster if crews are killed or captured. The fact is the USA has abused and exploited Iran starting in 1953. Iranians have a patriotic right to be pissed at the USA. But the vast majority of Americans are oblivious to that, having knowledge of US Iranian relations that only date back to 1979. If there is a war, I for one will not be cheering for American forces. Count me out.
You mean, before last week when they announced they were exceeding the level of enrichment allowed under JCPOA? If you enrich plutonium past 18% purity, your only objective is to produce modern nuclear weapons. And Iran is exceeding the limit now, by their own admission. That means only one thing. They are trying to use this threat to get the EUroweenies to pressure the US into returning to the terms of the JCPOA. And that will not happen. And now, because of Iran's admission to illegal enrichment, the EUroweenies can no longer pretend that Iran is in compliance in any way with JCPOA and therefore the EU will have no way to oppose the US/UK sanctions regime against Iran. Or to try to plot ways to evade the sanctions with John F'n Kerry and other anti-American elements. BTW, we are now increasing the already murderous level of sanctions we have imposed against Iran in direct retribution for their admission to illegal enrichment. So new and even more crippling sanctions will come very soon against Iran. Iran was responsible for the mines. And for shooting down the drone in international airspace. Something not mentioned widely is that that happened to be one of the original prototypes of that drone model, one which wasn't armed but was loaded to the gills with sensors. It was considered to be a technology demonstrator unit, a first-of-breed kind of thing. And it is a very large drone craft. But it is outmoded and was scheduled to be scrapped and parked in a desert boneyard later this year. Many defense analysts have speculated that we flew that drone deliberately in international airspace right on the edge of Iran's airspace (possibly taking advantage of the fact that we could prove the drone was outside Iran's airspace even if their second-rate radars said otherwise), just to see if we could get Iran to shoot it down. You may recall how FDR and even LBJ wanted always to make the enemy shoot at American ships first. It's very effective at making the American public mad as hell if you attack ships of the American navy. Defense analysts have stated that getting Iran to make the mistake of shooting down our drone would serve two purposes: 1) Iran can be proven to be an aggressor against aircraft in international airspace as well as well as a direct menace to oil shipping that is vital to the EU/China/Japan/Asia and 2) a drone like the one that was shot down has full high-speed electronic links to our intel satellites and could easily have provided America with a full electronic road map of the entire Iranian air defense network, information that could be shared, if Trump chose to, with Iran's main enemies: the Saudis (with all those shiny American jets we sold them) and the Israelis. And don't forget about that other main radar we have pointed directly at Iran in Israel's desert; it is said that you can't throw a soccer ball in the air in downtown Tehran without that radar seeing it. That radar unit happens to be in Israel for some years now but it is operated by American troops. Go ahead and cheer for Iran getting nukes.
"Allowed" you say? Is this the same JCPOA that Trump pulled the US out of? There is no deal, TC. None. Deals are two-way streets. You can't make an agreement with someone, and then break the deal while expecting the other person to stick to its terms. You cannot rule out the motivation of Saudi Arabia or Israel to have been responsible for the tanker damage when increasing hostilities with Iran play directly into their interests. Do you really think Iran would have sabataged the Japanese tanker while a Japan envoy was making a historic visit to Iran? At some point, you really need to be open to the possibility that they were framed. Very possible. Or maybe it actually did violate Iranian airspace for the exact same reason. Look TC, I don't trust the US military when it says stuff about Iran any more than I trust the FBI when it says stuff about Trump. Why (some) Trump supporters are only critical of corrupt motivations within the Fed gov when it's about Trump but fully trusting when it's about anyone else is a real mystery. The Deep State is real. Fake News is real, and not just when its about Trump. I am. You, in turn, can cheer for tyranny.
I think this is too difficult for Tooconservative to comprehend. Make it simpler.
There are no replies to Comment # 22. End Trace Mode for Comment # 22.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#3. To: Pinguinite (#1)
What is the hell is Iran supposed to do?
#4. To: Vicomte13 (#3)
Iran is supposed to renounce nuclear weapons, make peace with Israel and stop givi g givi giving financial support to terrorist militias. Those are the terms for peace.
#9. To: Pinguinite, Vicomte13 (#4)
I believe they have already stated they are not interested in nuke weapons.
I do not believe Iran attacked the tankers, but on the drone, it's a toss up as to whether it violated Iran airspace. Iran may have wanted to prove its air defense capabilities by shooting down an aircraft that was 11 miles high and if so, it was an adequate demonstration.
If there is a war, I for one will not be cheering for American forces. Count me out.
#11. To: Tooconservative (#9)
You mean, before last week when they announced they were exceeding the level of enrichment allowed under JCPOA?
Iran was responsible for the mines.
Many defense analysts have speculated that we flew that drone deliberately in international airspace right on the edge of Iran's airspace (possibly taking advantage of the fact that we could prove the drone was outside Iran's airspace even if their second-rate radars said otherwise), just to see if we could get Iran to shoot it down.
Go ahead and cheer for Iran getting nukes.
#22. To: Pinguinite (#11)
Deals are two-way streets. You can't make an agreement with someone, and then break the deal while expecting the other person to stick to its terms.
Replies to Comment # 22.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]