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: 15629
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 # 79.
#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.
A no nukes deal means that the Iranians have to submit to inspections to be sure that it remains true.
And if and when they get nukes? Do the sanctions then end or do we give them an incentive to use the nukes by continuing to torment the country? NK made nukes, and Iran is far more capable country in that regard tha NK is. Seems to me if non-proliferation was the goal, then Israel should not have been given nukes. That was most certainly a grave error. I don't think they even want nukes, but these sanctions are giving them that incentive to make them.
Israel is not relevant to the issue. Iran is a permanent, declared enemy and, unlike North Korea, which has a superpower protector that limits our ability to directly strike them to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons, Iran has no such protector, so we CAN physically prevent them from doing so and destroy whatever they do develop. And we will. If the Iranians have decided that they are going to destroy the future of their people by engaging in a headlong, permanent fight with the United States and our worldwide allies, over their supposed "right" to obtain nuclear weapons, then so be it: they will in fact destroy the future of their people, by charging into guns too strong for them to face and getting shot down doing it. One of the reasons that it's so important to break Iran in this matter is because so many people, like you, see in Iran the hope of holding up the fist of rebellion against the American world order. It is very important, therefore, that the Iranian example of resistance is utterly crushed, so that hope dies in hearts all over the world, and the rebellious at heart realize that rebellion against the status quo comes at a fearsome price, that it comes without victory at the end, and that it's ultimately not worth it. Unfortunately for the Iranians two and three generations from now, the stubborn decisions of their grandparents to shake their fist in the face of the American world order will result in those children and grandchildren living backwards and constrained lives compared to what they might have lived, all of that sacrifice for the arrogant pipe dream of obtaining nuclear weapons (which still will not have happened by that time). By the fourth generation they'll be truly sick of it and give up. It would be best for all if they gave up before starting it, but there always have to be examples in this world. Iran has stepped up to provide one. We should thank them for that, I suppose.
I can't tell if you are in favor of the US empire or are just stating that's the way it is. Yes Iran is the underdog. But they are not alone. The US has only 5-6% of the world population, and an Achilles heel of enormous debt. In fact, much of the ME policy is no doubt to defend not the US directly, but the dollar itself. I for one don't consider Iran a military threat even with nuke weapons. Is Pakistan at threat? They have nukes and they are Islamic. I'm not confident the US will retain its empire status perpetually. Nor am I confident the US can prevent Iran from developing them any more than they prevented the much poorer NK from obtaining them. Iran is a large country fully 20% of the size of the US in population, and they have a lot to lose in any nuke contest, especially with Israel having nukes pointed at them. There is no danger in Iran having nukes. That's my assessment at least.
The US does not have an empire. We have a global security system of allies, th that is mutually beneficial among all of the allies, because it establishes a zo zone of free trade and - relative - personal freedom (not perfect - Saudi ain't fr free, free, but there is freedom of mov fr free, free, but there is freedom of movement anyway). free, free, but there is fr freedom of movement anyway). Th fr freedom of movement anyway). There is no historical precedent for the Pax Americana; it is on a much, much grander scale grander scale than any p grander scale grander scale than any previous "empire". Eff gran grander scale than any previous "emp previous "empire". Effe previous "emp previous "empire". Effectively, the Pax Americana COMB COMBINES the US with the old British, old British, French, D old British, old British, French, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, Swed Swedish, Danish, Austro Hungarian, Ot Hungarian, Ottoman, J Hungarian, Ot Hungarian, Ottoman, Japanese and German Empires. We did did not conquer all of them. But all them. But all have d them. But all them. But all have did did not conquer all of them. But all have a common interest in t interest in the com interest in t interest in the common peac peace and keeping the oceans open everywhere to free trade. free trade. free trade. free trade. Nothing remotely like this every existed in history. The British Empire was th the militar the military riv the militar the military rival of the other Empires. The Pax Romana only extended to the bo borders of borders of Rome borders of borders of Rome, and was not really very peaceful. The Pax Americana is global, and is so beneficial to everybody that even countries countries that countries countries that have rival economic interests and who compete quite strongly on the econo the economic the econo the economic front, have US basing and cooperate with the US security network, because t because that because t because that worldwide peace, which never existed before on such a grand scale, is good f is good for is good f is good for nearly everybody. That doesn't make us an empire, though. We don't RULE England, Germany, France, Japan, Japan, etc Japan, Japan, etc. We compete with them. We merely vouchsafe the connon defense and are the are the l are the are the linchpin of th defense and are the linchpin of the world security system. system. system. system. It's something defense and are the linchpin of the world security system. It's something new under the sun. The countries that choose to remain outside of of the of of the of the world security of the of the world security system (North Korea, Cub Cuba, Cub Cuba, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Red China, China, Burma, Vietna China, China, Bur Burma, Vietnam and Russia) do not propose some alternative system of freedo fre freedom. They are, freedo freedom. They are, rather, oppressive states hellbent on on on on upsetting the world order, order, as though t order, order, as though they wer we wer were merely resisting the United States and seeking to replac replace the US wi rep r rep replac replace the US with themselves, like any other old empire. But that's the difference: Russia and China seek to emulate the old Brit B British/French/German/Russian/Japanese empires, with a home country and cowed s sate satellites.
I strongly disagree. By any objective measure, the USA is an empire. Our military is more costly than the next 15-20 countries combined. You can hear it on TV where the US is claiming the right not just to defend our military and allies in the ME region but also our "interests". We do rule our "allies". you can see it in the case of Iranian sanctions where Europe wanted to continue the Iranian deal but the US has dictated "no". You can see in in the UK seizing the Iranian tanker at the urging of the USA. You can see it when, for example, was it Spain that detained and searched a jet transporting the president of Bolivia because they suspected Snowden was aboard, in a breach of diplomatic protocol. These countries do what the USA tells them to. Free trade? How free is it when the US Dollar is the world reserve currency? The US uses its vast military to enforce the petro dollar. We have troops all over the globe. Yes, the USA is an empire, by any objective measure.
If we're an empire, we are completely unlike the Empires of the past. We have no overseas territories to speak of. Instead, we base our navies, air forces and armies in allied lands. Can you imagine the British being granted basing rights in the French Empire, or vice versa, in the Age of Empires? Didn't happen. When an ally no longer wishes to have our forces based there and tells us to leave, we do. The French did it in the 1960s, and the Filipinos did it after Marcos. What empire does that? Our allies are just that - allies - not vassals. There's no empire in history anything like this. The United States is based in more countries, and has a wider scope of allied countries, than any nation in history. If the US is an empire, it is well over twice the size of the British Empire - the entirety of the Americas except Cuba is in it, Australia, New Zealand - all of Oceania is in it. All of Europe except for Russia, Belarus and Serbia is in it or seeking to associate with it. The Persian Gulf is in it, except for Iran. Most of Africa is in it. It's easier to name the countries NOT in the American security sphere - "Empire" if you will: Cuba. Russia. Belarus. Serbia. Ukraine. The "Stans" (except for Afghanistan and Pakistan, which are American-occupied or nominmal allies). Syria. Iran. Sudan. Yemen. Somalia. Zimbabwe. Congo (Zaire...and even then...), India, China, Burma, Laos, Vietnam (and they're coming into it because of Chinese aggression), and North Korea. The entire rest of the world is allied and part of the system. Thst's just not an empire. The French parts of Africa are all very much focused on France, not the US, but they're still part of the US security system, and they still have US troops operating in them for various reasons. Pakistan doesn't like us much at all, but we still have passage through there, and still operate forces from there. If we're an Empire, we're certainly not in the mold of the British, French, Russian, Soviet, Mongol or Roman Empires. We're something else. Which is why the word "Empire" doesn't really work. We're a world security system, not an empire, not really.
I can't speak exactly for the nature of historic empires in comparison, but it the end result is the same. World control. Previously it was done with military presense. In todays world, it's done economically. How else could it be that the US is able to put severe pressure on what Iran can and cannot do from almost the opposite side of the planet? An empire controls the world. What does the US do? The US is an empire. Though it won't unwind as gracefully as the British empire did.
#81. To: Pinguinite (#79)
But see, that's just it. No historical empire ever controlled the world, or even close. America largely does. They were all limited because they were ethno-national states expanding for the specific benefit of a mother ship ethnicity. And while some empires were stronger than others (in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, the British Empire was strongest, followed by the French, with the others trailing behind them), the British certainly did not rule the world: they ruled their empire, could place some pressure on their rivals, but had very little power in Europe at all. The US, by contrast, does not RULE Europe, but it does have supreme military command over all of Europe west of Russia and Belarus. Nothing like that ever existed in history. Similarly in the East, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, New Sealand - these are sovereign countries, but they are all part of the American-commanded security system, and operate jointly, and the Americans operate in all of them. The historical British Empire had no relationships like that. They outright RULED Australia and New Sealand, with imperial authority and oversight. Nobody who wasn't under their military control voluntarily put the British in command of anything. Britain had no relationship with any country the way that the US has an integrated military command structure with every country in Europe. It's simply unprecedented, and it's not an "empire" anything like anything that came before. The Americans do not RULE Britain, nor govern it in any way. And yet there are American bases and forces there, and in Europe in peacetime and in war, the Americans command the British, French, German and everybody else's armed forces within NATO. Control of military operations WITHOUT legislative, economic or political control. It has never happened before on a structured permanent basis. That's not how empires worked. America is the global head of security, and in a hard power sense, effectively DOES rule most of the world (and contains the parts it doesn't rule). But that's it. In economic affairs, America competes with all of the other nations, and doesn't always win either.
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.
#62. To: Pinguinite (#4)
#63. To: Vicomte13 (#62)
A no nukes deal means that the Iranians have to submit to inspections to be sure that it remains true.
#64. To: Pinguinite (#63)
#65. To: Vicomte13 (#64)
#73. To: Pinguinite (#65)
(Edited)
#74. To: Vicomte13 (#73)
#78. To: Pinguinite (#74)
(Edited)
#79. To: Vicomte13 (#78)
Replies to Comment # 79.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 79.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]