Tehran fumes as Britain seizes Iranian oil tanker over Syria sanctions

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, BestB said:

And you right there again ????

 

Olivier Dorgans, an economic sanctions expert at Hughes Hubbard & Reed law firm in Paris, said the British move appeared intended to send a warning to the Iranians that if they pushed on with their nuclear breaches, European countries would act:

 

"This was done for political effect. The British are warning the Iranians."

 

Well, if Olivier Dorgans says so. But even if that was the case, it is not as you claimed because of sanctions possible under the nuclear deal.

[petemoss]

7 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Saying "it's not true" doesn't mean a whole lot in this context. Judging from your posts, seems enough for you, though.

 

As far as I recall, nothing along the lines of this-isn't-an-Iranian-vessel (accompanied by evidence), or these-aren't-Iranian-personnel (accompanied by evidence).

 

 

 

Let's put the shoe on the foot. Where's the evidence that this is an Iranian vessel? What evidence is there that the crew were Iranian?

[BestB]

18 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Well, if Olivier Dorgans says so. But even if that was the case, it is not as you claimed because of sanctions possible under the nuclear deal.

Oh sorry, i forgot, you are by far bigger expert troll on these matters. a real expert with extensive google knowledge????????????

[petemoss]

2 minutes ago, BestB said:

I do not believe US even considering foot invasion, but air and sea warfare.

It would be huge mistake to send in foot troops, but i am not a war strategist, only my personal opinion and what sounds logical to me ????

Air and sea power have a huge role to play in modern warfare and there's no doubt that the US would completely overpower Iran or any other country in that theatre, but you can't win a war without putting boots on the ground.

[BestB]

3 minutes ago, petemoss said:

Air and sea power have a huge role to play in modern warfare and there's no doubt that the US would completely overpower Iran or any other country in that theatre, but you can't win a war without putting boots on the ground.

Yes, but highly unlikely either party is interested in a full blown war nor can afford one.

 

Iran has totally isolated itself, even Russia is remaining silent on the matter.

 

So who is there to back Iran? No one, and they know it.just do not want to come out as underdogs.

 

 

[petemoss]

12 minutes ago, BestB said:

Yes, but highly unlikely either party is interested in a full blown war nor can afford one.

Wars, no matter who they are between, tend to be hugely profitable for the US arms industry.

 

Let's not forget why the US have a beef with Iran, who are no threat to them. It's purely an attempt, by Trump, to suck up to his favourite dictator, MBS, who the US sell vast amounts of arms to and take considerable amounts of their oil.

 

It's all about the cold war between Iran and Saudi, the US have no reason to worry about any threat from Iran.

 

Also, Trump has been under extreme pressure from Netanyahu to neutralise the biggest perceived threat to Israel.

 

 

Edited July 6, 2019 by petemoss

[bristolboy]

13 minutes ago, BestB said:

Yes, but highly unlikely either party is interested in a full blown war nor can afford one.

 

Iran has totally isolated itself, even Russia is remaining silent on the matter.

 

So who is there to back Iran? No one, and they know it.just do not want to come out as underdogs.

 

 

China defies US sanctions by tapping Iran oil supplies

Crude imports offer financial lifeline to Tehran in spite of Washington ban

https://www.ft.com/content/6b944786-9809-11e9-8cfb-30c211dcd229

[BestB]

12 minutes ago, petemoss said:

Wars, no matter who they are between, tend to be hugely profitable for the US arms industry.

 

Let's not forget why the US have a beef with Iran, who are no threat to them. It's purely an attempt, by Trump, to suck up to his favourite dictator, MBS, who the US sell vast amounts of arms to and take considerable amounts of their oil.

 

It's all about the cold war between Iran and Saudi, the US have no reason to worry about any threat from Iran.

 

Also, Trump has been under extreme pressure from Netanyahu to neutralise the biggest perceived threat to Israel.

 

 

Of course in every war someone makes money, but with 20 or something trillion in debt, US is hardly in position for a full blown out war

[BestB]

8 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

China defies US sanctions by tapping Iran oil supplies

Crude imports offer financial lifeline to Tehran in spite of Washington ban

https://www.ft.com/content/6b944786-9809-11e9-8cfb-30c211dcd229

 China defying sanctions for normal people does not translate into backing Iran, but does mean getting cheap oil. How is China going to get cheap oil if Iranian tankers are prevented from sailing?

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, BestB said:

 China defying sanctions for normal people does not translate into backing Iran, but does mean getting cheap oil. How is China going to get cheap oil if Iranian tankers are prevented from sailing?

The sanctions do not include a blockade. And essentially if a party to the nuclear deal doesn't want to abide by the sanctions, what will happen? They can always withdraw from the agreement. Remember it was pretty amazing the Kerry got China and Russia to sing up to the sanctions in the first place.

[chickenslegs]

Just as an aside- I noticed that the live webcams at Portsmouth are no longer showing HMS Queen Elizabeth.

HMS Victory and HMS Warrior are still in dry dock.

https://www.historicdockyard.co.uk/warrior-webcam

[BestB]

8 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

The sanctions do not include a blockade. And essentially if a party to the nuclear deal doesn't want to abide by the sanctions, what will happen? They can always withdraw from the agreement. Remember it was pretty amazing the Kerry got China and Russia to sing up to the sanctions in the first place.

Again with the same nonsense .

 

Seized tanker was not in “blockade” and next one does not need to be in “blockade” either , that is not to say a blockade may well be introduced 

[bristolboy]

11 minutes ago, BestB said:

Again with the same nonsense .

 

Seized tanker was not in “blockade” and next one does not need to be in “blockade” either , that is not to say a blockade may well be introduced 

You are dead wrong on this issue. Dead, dead wrong.

 

That tanker was seized for bringing oil to Syria. The seizure had nothing legally to do with the nuclear pact. There was no blockade among the sanctions imposed on Iran before it agreed to negotiate. The "snap-back" provisions of the deal reinstate the sanctions that existed before. So no, no blockade. What's more, there is no provision for forcing any signatory except Iran to adhere to the sanctions. And just as the US did, any other signatory can walk away from the deal and do as it pleases. Although, as pointed out, it could do what it pleases and remain a signatory.

[BestB]

Just now, bristolboy said:

You are dead wrong on this issue. Dead, dead wrong.

 

That tanker was seized for bringing oil to Syria. The seizure had nothing legally to do with the nuclear pact. There was no blockade among the sanctions imposed on Iran before it agreed to negotiate. The "snap-back" provisions of the deal reinstate the sanctions that existed before. So no, no blockade. What's more, there is no provision for forcing any signatory except Iran to adhere to the sanctions. And just as the US did, any other signatory can walk away from the deal and do as it pleases. Although, as pointed out, it could do what it pleases and remain a signatory.

Of course I am dead wrong , because you are an expert .

 

repeating same nonsense over and over again does not make it less of a nonsense 

[khunken]

35 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

The sanctions do not include a blockade. And essentially if a party to the nuclear deal doesn't want to abide by the sanctions, what will happen? They can always withdraw from the agreement. Remember it was pretty amazing the Kerry got China and Russia to sing up to the sanctions in the first place.

You've got this backwards.

For example China is a party to the agreement, which is still in force for all except the US, and the agreement has suspended sanctions, so China can import Iranian oil without any limitation.

 

And to add that there are no UN or EU sanctions that prevent Iran shipping oil to Syria. The only EU sanctions relative to oil is that Syria is banned from selling oil to the EU.

I wouldn't call illegally seizing one ship a blockade just yet but strongly suspect that this seizure was at the US's request, just as Spain has said.

Edited July 6, 2019 by khunken

[petemoss]

On 7/5/2019 at 2:23 AM, webfact said:

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.

 

22 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

 

That tanker was seized for bringing oil to Syria. The seizure had nothing legally to do with the nuclear pact. 

Not legally but everything to do with the pressure that the US is trying to put on Iran. Absolutely nothing to do with the sanctions on Syria, that was the excuse made in an attempt to keep it legal.

 

Britain acted at the request of Bolton and his fellow warmongers. We used to have Blair as Bush's poodle, soon to have Johnson as Trump's poodle.

Edited July 6, 2019 by petemoss

[bristolboy]

14 minutes ago, BestB said:

Of course I am dead wrong , because you are an expert .

 

repeating same nonsense over and over again does not make it less of a nonsense 

Calling something nonsense without explaining why is itself nonsense. Are you contending that tanker was seized because Iran violated the nuclear deal? None of the signatories have even invoked the dispute resolution clauses in the nuclear deal much less had them adjudicated. And adjudication takes 65 days. Anything specific evidence you've got for a rebuttal?

Edited July 6, 2019 by bristolboy

[petemoss]

52 minutes ago, BestB said:

Of course in every war someone makes money, but with 20 or something trillion in debt, US is hardly in position for a full blown out war

No, in every war the US makes money, shedloads of it. Probably help to reduce the national debt.

[mike787]

1 hour ago, petemoss said:

Wars, no matter who they are between, tend to be hugely profitable for the US arms industry.

 

Let's not forget why the US have a beef with Iran, who are no threat to them. It's purely an attempt, by Trump, to suck up to his favourite dictator, MBS, who the US sell vast amounts of arms to and take considerable amounts of their oil.

 

It's all about the cold war between Iran and Saudi, the US have no reason to worry about any threat from Iran.

 

Also, Trump has been under extreme pressure from Netanyahu to neutralise the biggest perceived threat to Israel.

 

 

Iran needs to be contained or removed from this earth to another planet all their own.  They contribute nothing but turmoil and hell for everyone.  If you feel so fond of Iran and compelled to rise to their defense, have you considered to support them financially or otherwise? 

[mike787]

13 minutes ago, petemoss said:

No, in every war the US makes money, shedloads of it. Probably help to reduce the national debt.

War is business. 

[bristolboy]

Just now, mike787 said:

Iran needs to be contained or removed from this earth to another planet all their own.  They contribute nothing but turmoil and hell for everyone.  If you feel so fond of Iran and compelled to rise to their defense, have you considered to support them financially or otherwise? 

If you hate them so much, have you considered personally waging war on them? I know, my question is just as clueless as is yours.

[mike787]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

If you hate them so much, have you considered personally waging war on them? I know, my question is just as clueless as is yours.

Yes, I have considered...

[petemoss]

1 minute ago, mike787 said:

Iran needs to be contained or removed from this earth to another planet all their own.  They contribute nothing but turmoil and hell for everyone.  If you feel so fond of Iran and compelled to rise to their defense, have you considered to support them financially or otherwise? 

And which planet are you from?

 

"They contribute nothing but turmoil and hell for everyone." I presume you base this opinion on Trump and Bolton's absurd and nonsensical jingoistic propaganda.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, mike787 said:

Yes, I have considered...

bon voyage!

[petemoss]

3 minutes ago, mike787 said:

War is business. 

Only for americans. The rest of the planet try to avoid war at all costs.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, petemoss said:

Let's put the shoe on the foot. Where's the evidence that this is an Iranian vessel? What evidence is there that the crew were Iranian?

 

Deflect away.

I wasn't making any strong claims regarding the USA version. If anything, I repeatedly posted the clip was not conclusive evidence supporting USA narrative. You, on the other hand, accepted the Iranian narrative without much questions, and made a strong claim regarding Iran's reactions to the clip - which you fail to demonstrate.

[Morch]

20 minutes ago, petemoss said:

No, in every war the US makes money, shedloads of it. Probably help to reduce the national debt.

 

No. Some companies do. Shareholders do. Associated business may.

The country, as in government and budgets, does not.

 

USA arms sales aren't even in the top 10 list of USA exports.

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, petemoss said:

Only for americans. The rest of the planet try to avoid war at all costs.

Really? The Saudis? The Russians? And, yes, the Iranians?  Probably others that don't come to mind at the moment.

[mike787]

4 minutes ago, petemoss said:

And which planet are you from?

 

"They contribute nothing but turmoil and hell for everyone." I presume you base this opinion on Trump and Bolton's absurd and nonsensical jingoistic propaganda.

Are you an ISIS member?  Iran is a known terrorist country. 

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, petemoss said:

Only for americans. The rest of the planet try to avoid war at all costs.

 

That's not even remotely true. On both counts.