Tehran fumes as Britain seizes Iranian oil tanker over Syria sanctions

By Jonathan Saul and Parisa Hafezi

 

Oil supertanker Grace 1 on suspicion of being carrying Iranian crude oil to Syria is seen near Gibraltar, Spain in this picture obtained from social media, July 4, 2019. Stephen McHugh via REUTERS

 

LONDON/DUBAI (Reuters) - British Royal Marines seized a giant Iranian oil tanker in Gibraltar on Thursday for trying to take oil to Syria in violation of EU sanctions, a dramatic step that drew Tehran's fury and could escalate its confrontation with the West.

 

The Grace 1 tanker was impounded in the British territory on the southern tip of Spain after sailing around Africa, the long route from the Middle East to the mouth of the Mediterranean.

 

British Royal Marines have detained a tanker believed to be carrying Iranian crude to Syria, putting it in violation of U.S. and European sanctions. Rough cut (no reporter narration).

 

Iran's Foreign Ministry summoned the British ambassador to voice "its very strong objection to the illegal and unacceptable seizure" of its ship. The diplomatic gesture lifted any doubt over Iran's ownership of the vessel, which flies a Panama flag and is listed as managed by a company in Singapore.

 

Panama's Maritime Authority said on Thursday that Grace 1 was no longer listed in Panama's international boat registry as of May 29.

 

U.S. national security adviser John Bolton said the British move was "excellent news."

 

"America & our allies will continue to prevent regimes in Tehran & Damascus from profiting off this illicit trade," Bolton said on Twitter.

 

Shipping data reviewed by Reuters suggests the tanker was carrying Iranian oil loaded off the coast of Iran, although its documents say the oil is from neighbouring Iraq.

 

While Europe has banned oil shipments to Syria since 2011, it had never seized a tanker at sea. Unlike the United States, Europe does not have broad sanctions against Iran.

 

"This is the first time that the EU has done something so public and so aggressive. I imagine it was also coordinated in some manner with the U.S. given that NATO member forces have been involved," said Matthew Oresman, a partner with law firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman who advises firms on sanctions.

 

"This is likely to have been meant as a signal to Syria and Iran - as well as the U.S. - that Europe takes sanctions enforcement seriously and that the EU can also respond to Iranian brinkmanship related to ongoing nuclear negotiations," he said.

 

Authorities in Gibraltar made no reference to the source of the oil or the ownership of the ship when they seized it.

 

But Iran's acknowledgment that it owned the ship, and the likelihood that its cargo was also Iranian, drew a link between the incident and a new U.S. effort to halt all global sales of Iranian crude. Iran describes that as an illegal "economic war."

 

European countries have so far tried to appear neutral in the escalating confrontation between Tehran and Washington, which saw the United States call off air strikes against Iran just minutes before impact last month, and Tehran amass stocks of enriched uranium banned under a 2015 nuclear deal.

 

The Gibraltar government said it had reasonable grounds to believe that the Grace 1 was carrying crude oil to the Baniyas refinery in Syria.

 

"That refinery is the property of an entity that is subject to European Union sanctions against Syria," Gibraltar Chief Minister Fabian Picardo said. "With my consent, our port and law enforcement agencies sought the assistance of the Royal Marines in carrying out this operation."

 

A spokesman for British Prime Minister Theresa May welcomed Gibraltar's move.

 

U.S. SANCTIONS TIGHTENED

Spain, which challenges British ownership of Gibraltar, said the action was prompted by a U.S. request to Britain and appeared to have taken place in Spanish waters. Britain's Foreign Office did not respond to a request for comment.

 

Iran has long been supplying its allies in Syria with oil despite sanctions against Syria. What is new are U.S. sanctions onIran itself, imposed last year when President Donald Trump pulled out of an agreement that had guaranteed Tehran access to world trade in return for curbs on its nuclear programme.

 

Those U.S. sanctions have been tightened sharply since May, effectively forcing Iran from mainstream oil markets and making it desperate for alternative customers. Iran has grown more reliant on its own tanker fleet to transport whatever oil it can sell and to store a growing stockpile of unsold output.

 

The U.S.-Iranian confrontation has escalated in recent weeks, taking on a military dimension after Washington accused Tehran of attacking tankers in the Gulf and Iran shot down a U.S. drone. Trump ordered air strikes but called them off at the last minute, later saying too many people would have died.

 

European countries opposed Trump's decision to exit the nuclear deal last year, and they have promised to help Iran find alternative ways to export, but with little success so far.

 

Iran has said it wants to keep the nuclear deal alive but must receive promised economic benefits. This week it announced it had accumulated more low-enriched uranium than the deal allows and from July 7 will refine uranium to a greater purity than permitted. Graphic: Oil supertanker detained in Gibraltar, click

 

By restricting Iran's ability to move oil, U.S. sanctions have choked off Tehran's Syrian allies, causing fuel shortages in government-controlled areas. In May, Syria received its first foreign oil for six months with the arrival of two shipments, one from Iran, a source said at the time.

 

Earlier this year, Reuters revealed that the Grace 1 was one of four tankers involved in shipping Iranian fuel oil to Singapore and China, violating U.S. sanctions.

 

The 300,000-tonne tanker is registered as being managed by Singapore-based IShips Management Pte Ltd. Reuters was unable to establish contact with the firm for comment.

 

It was documented as loading fuel oil in the Iraqi port of Basra in December, though Basra did not list it as being in port and its tracking system was switched off. The tanker reappeared on tracking maps near Iran's port of Bandar Assalyeh, fully loaded.

 

Homayoun Falakshahi, senior analyst at London-based energy data firm Kpler, told Reuters the ship had loaded Iranian crude in mid-April from Iran's export port of Kharg Island.

 

A maritime intelligence source said the ship may have made the journey around Africa to avoid the Suez Canal, where such a large super-tanker would have had to unload its cargo and refill after passing through, exposing it to potential seizure.

 

(Reporting by Jonathan Saul in London and Parisa Hafezi in Dubai; Additional reporting by Kate Holton in London, Tom Miles in Geneva, Tom Perry in Beirut, Roslan Khasawneh in Singapore, Humeyra Pamuk and Idrees Ali in Washington, Elida Moreno in Panama City; Writing by Peter Graff; Editing by Jon Boyle, Janet Lawrence, Diane Craft and Leslie Adler)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-07-05

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

It was Gibraltar that initiated the boarding of the ship, with the assistance of the Royal Marines.

 

Seems the way the Ship was boarded was to secure incriminating documents before they could be destroyed.

 

Probably intrerviewing the crew may also implement the vessels use in previous sanction busting. 

And so it begins. 

48 minutes ago, BestB said:

And so it begins. 

Maybe. But this has nothing to do with the snap back clauses of the nuclear pact.

Edited July 5, 20197 yr by bristolboy

Amazing Grace.

https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:416354/mmsi:355271000/vessel:GRACE 1

 

https://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/press-releases/detention-of-super-tanker-the-grace-1-5062019-5095

Edited July 5, 20197 yr by ratcatcher

Regime Change #178 now underway

46 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Maybe. But this has nothing to do with the snap back clauses of the nuclear pact.

Well in the sense that Britain's action was taken at the request of the US, not the EU, it has.

 

Here we go again, the UK doing the US's dirty work for it. Expect much more when Boris becomes PM.

 

Boris Johnson = Trump's lapdog.

43 minutes ago, petemoss said:

Well in the sense that Britain's action was taken at the request of the US, not the EU, it has.

 

Here we go again, the UK doing the US's dirty work for it. Expect much more when Boris becomes PM.

 

Boris Johnson = Trump's lapdog.

Boris is not in control yet...

 

UK could only ask the the Gibraltarians to act...

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Maybe. But this has nothing to do with the snap back clauses of the nuclear pact.

May be more to do with the Iranians attacks on other tankers which they denied but everybody know they were behind it... 

1 minute ago, Basil B said:

May be more to do with the Iranians attacks on other tankers which they denied but everybody know they were behind it... 

"everybody know they were behind it... "

Why does everybody know that? Because US and SA say so?

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

"everybody know they were behind it... "

Why does everybody know that? Because US and SA say so?

Who else could have done it? even the Iranians have not come up with a plausible explanation as to who else would atack oil tankers off their coast. 

14 minutes ago, Basil B said:

Boris is not in control yet...

 

UK could only ask the the Gibraltarians to act...

It was the Royal Navy not the "Gibraltar Navy" that acted. 

 

Although the Brits used the excuse of EU sanctions on Syria, it was never about that. In reality, it was US sanctions on the export of Iranian oil which was the issue. The intel and request to stop the ship came from the US. The EU had no idea that it was happening, hence the noises from Spain.

 

As I said, expect much more of this when Boris is PM. Boris likey licky big orange botty!

Edited July 5, 20197 yr by petemoss

5 minutes ago, Basil B said:

Who else could have done it? even the Iranians have not come up with a plausible explanation as to who else would atack oil tankers off their coast. 

Although I belive that it probably was Iran, there is some evidence that it was a false flag attack. Saudi forces acting on the instructions of the CIA/Mossad. It certainly gave strength to the US desire to launch a military attack on Iran.

 

 

Edited July 5, 20197 yr by petemoss

Looks like someone ended up with a  ???? / ship load of free fuel oil  

12 minutes ago, petemoss said:

there is some evidence that it was a false flag attack.

Please post it then or links to it.

19 minutes ago, Basil B said:

Who else could have done it? even the Iranians have not come up with a plausible explanation as to who else would atack oil tankers off their coast. 

That is far from the same as 'everybody knows it was the Iranians'. On top of that, your claim is not true and your reasoning is incorrect, there are many other credible options mentioned in online discussions.

Methinks the Ratcliffe's recently discontinued hunger strike is about to resume...

oops 

Edited July 5, 20197 yr by VocalNeal

6 minutes ago, sandrabbit said:

Please post it then or links to it.

Why?

22 minutes ago, monkeycu said:

Looks like someone ended up with a  ???? / ship load of free fuel oil  

But Gibraltar has no refinery... 

14 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Methinks the Ratcliffe's recently discontinued hunger strike is about to resume...

Sad, she is a pawn.

 

But if this escalates, her release could be precondition of any talks Iran requests, best she can hope for at this time.

24 minutes ago, sandrabbit said:

37 minutes ago, petemoss said:

there is some evidence that it was a false flag attack.

Please post it then or links to it.

Not sure whether the Iranians actually said that or just some journalists thinking out aloud...

Was the red bull heir on the oil tanker ?

26 minutes ago, sandrabbit said:

Please post it then or links to it.

The video of the removal of the mine from the ship's hull showed a boat with several crew. There was no indication that the crew or the boat were Iranian other than the US administration claimed it whilst offering zero evidence of their claim. In fact the crew were dressed in garb that you would normally associate with Arabs (as in Saudis) rather than Iranians. Also, why remove a mine? Because they wanted to cause relatively minimum damage to one of their own vessels. Would the Iranians have done this?

 

The crew were rescued by Iranians, the White House claimed that they had been taken hostage as a rescue by Iranians didn't fit their narrative. This was proved to be completely false. Just more White House propaganda, which many claim was the root of the whole incident.

49 minutes ago, petemoss said:

It was the Royal Navy not the "Gibraltar Navy" that acted. 

The official statement was:

Quote

British Royal Marines helped the authorities in Gibraltar seize the ship because of evidence it was heading to Syria in breach of EU sanctions.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48871462

3 hours ago, BestB said:

And so it begins. 

Oh really?  Who's starting sh$t now? 

 Don't start something you can't finish!

Edited July 5, 20197 yr by habanero

1 minute ago, Basil B said:

The official statement was:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48871462

And you believe that?

 

So the Gibraltarian secret service tracked the ship from Iran, decided that it was sanction busting and asked the UK government to carry out a seizure of the ship? Unreal.

There will be a couple of smoldering turbans right now just tell them the seizure was Allah's will if they still got the hump????

3 minutes ago, petemoss said:

And you believe that?

 

So the Gibraltarian secret service tracked the ship from Iran, decided that it was sanction busting and asked the UK government to carry out a seizure of the ship? Unreal.

Yes...

Nether seen how easy it is to track a ship?

https://www.myshiptracking.com/

8 minutes ago, petemoss said:

And you believe that?

 

So the Gibraltarian secret service tracked the ship from Iran, decided that it was sanction busting and asked the UK government to carry out a seizure of the ship? Unreal.

No one has claimed that the Gibraltar secret service were the main players in this story