Iran threatens British shipping in retaliation for tanker seizure

By Parisa Hafezi

 

Oil supertanker Grace 1 on suspicion of being carrying Iranian crude oil to Syria is seen near Gibraltar, Spain July 4, 2019. REUTERS/Stringer

 

LONDON/DUBAI (Reuters) - An Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander threatened on Friday to seize a British ship in retaliation for the capture of an Iranian supertanker by Royal Marines in Gibraltar.

 

"If Britain does not release the Iranian oil tanker, it is the authorities' duty to seize a British oil tanker," Mohsen Rezai said on Twitter.

 

The Gibraltar government said the crew on board the supertanker Grace 1 were being interviewed as witnesses, not criminal suspects, in an effort to establish the nature of the cargo and its ultimate destination.

 

U.S. President Donald Trump, while not specifically mentioning the supertanker incident, repeated a warning to Tehran: "We'll see what happens with Iran. Iran has to be very, very careful," he told reporters at the White House.

 

British Royal Marines boarded the ship off the coast of the British territory on Thursday and seized it over accusations it was breaking sanctions by taking oil to Syria. They landed a helicopter on the moving vessel in pitch darkness.

 

The move escalates a confrontation between Iran and the West just weeks after the United States called off air strikes on Iran minutes before impact, and draws Washington's close ally into a crisis in which European powers had striven to appear neutral.

 

A U.S. State Department spokeswoman said, "We welcome international partners' resolve in upholding and enforcing these sanctions."

 

Tehran summoned the British ambassador on Thursday to voice "its very strong objection to the illegal and unacceptable seizure" of its ship, a move that also eliminated doubt about the ownership of the vessel.

 

THIN LINE

 

Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi said the crude oil cargo was from Iran. The ship's paperwork had said the oil was from neighbouring Iraq, but tracking data reviewed by Reuters suggested it had loaded at an Iranian port.

 

European countries have walked a thin line since last year when the United States ignored their pleas and pulled out of a pact between Iran and world powers that gave Tehran access to global trade in return for curbs on its nuclear programme.

 

Over the past two months, Washington has sharply tightened sanctions against Tehran with the aim of halting its oil exports altogether. The moves have largely driven Iran from mainstream markets and forced it to find unconventional ways to sell crude.

 

The confrontation has taken on a military dimension in recent weeks, with Washington accusing Iran of attacking ships in the Gulf and Iran shooting down a U.S. drone. Trump ordered, then cancelled, retaliatory strikes.

 

With nuclear diplomacy at the heart of the crisis, Iran announced this week it had amassed more fissile material than allowed under its deal, and said it would purify uranium to a higher degree than permitted from July 7.

 

The Grace 1 was impounded in the British territory on the southern tip of Spain after sailing the long way around Africa from the Middle East to the mouth of the Mediterranean, a route that demonstrates the unusual steps Iran appears to be taking to try to keep some exports flowing.

 

Graphic: Oil supertanker detained in Gibraltar -

 

"WARNING THE IRANIANS"

 

The Gibraltar spokesman said the 28-member crew, who have remained on board the supertanker, were mainly Indians with some Pakistanis and Ukrainians. Police and customs officials remained on board the vessel to carry out their investigation, but the Royal Marines were no longer present.

 

While the European Union has not followed the United States in imposing broad sanctions against Iran, it has had measures in place since 2011 that prohibit sales of oil to Syria.

 

Gibraltar said on Friday it had obtained an order extending the detention of the supertanker by 14 days because there were grounds to believe it was breaking sanctions by taking crude oil to Syria.

 

Shipping experts say it may have been avoiding the more direct route through the Suez Canal, where a big tanker would typically be required to unload part of its cargo into a pipeline to cross, potentially exposing it to seizure.

 

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."

 

(Additional reporting by John Irish in Paris and Lesley Wroughton and Alexandra Alper in Washington; Writing by Peter Graff; Editing by Janet Lawrence and James Dalgleish)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-07-06

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

 

 

6 minutes ago, rooster59 said:

"If Britain does not release the Iranian oil tanker, it is the authorities' duty to seize a British oil tanker," Mohsen Rezai said on Twitter.

Iran, feeling very insecure, cornered and worried became the neighbourhood bully, we will do this and that and harm you this way and that way if you don't do what we want you to do, that's basically all that the Mullahs have in their power now, threats, intimidations and retaliations, so all of a sudden Trump action on Iran doesn't look so bad or out of place...

45 minutes ago, ezzra said:

Iran, feeling very insecure, cornered and worried became the neighbourhood bully, we will do this and that and harm you this way and that way if you don't do what we want you to do, that's basically all that the Mullahs have in their power now, threats, intimidations and retaliations, so all of a sudden Trump action on Iran doesn't look so bad or out of place...

Trump's actions caused this whole mess.

14 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Trump's actions caused this whole mess.

And one day you will thank him for it..

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

Trump's actions caused this whole mess.

so you think it is ok for Iran to have nukes

 

what we see all over the world and all through history are wars and conflict fuelled by religion and greed, some of us have become more civil - others have not

 

whatever the fanatical Iran does unfortunately effects us all, they wouldn't give a second thought to nuking Israel, some of us have learned from history unfortunately many haven't, power grabbing greed remains and fanatics still exist

3 minutes ago, smedly said:

so you think it is ok for Iran to have nukes

 

what we see all over the world and all through history are wars and conflict fuelled by religion and greed, some of us have become more civil - others have not

 

whatever the fanatical Iran does unfortunately effects us all, they wouldn't give a second thought to nuking Israel, some of us have learned from history unfortunately many haven't, power grabbing greed remains and fanatics still exist

Iran was abiding by the agreement Donald broke it not Iran and take a look how he has handeled n Korea Donald isent doing so well in this area I personally think as most do that Iran’s government are bad actors that beeing said I wouldn’t expect them to hold still as Donald try’s to strangle their economy 

A very curiously timed highly provocative military action, given it has taken place at the precise moment the UK is changing it’s political leadership. 

 

Somebody thought this a good idea.

 

The question is who and why?

Baiting post and reply removed

3 hours ago, stevenl said:

Trump's actions caused this whole mess.

This was because of European sanctions set up in 2011, long before Trump became President. 

3 hours ago, stevenl said:

Trump's actions caused this whole mess.

Of Course if Britain had done the same to a US or French ship there would be no retaliatory talk???

The problem is all the pressure you bring to bear on the Iranian Regime only strengthen it. Youth and knowledge will bring change not external pressure

 

2 hours ago, smedly said:

so you think it is ok for Iran to have nukes

 

what we see all over the world and all through history are wars and conflict fuelled by religion and greed, some of us have become more civil - others have not

 

whatever the fanatical Iran does unfortunately effects us all, they wouldn't give a second thought to nuking Israel, some of us have learned from history unfortunately many haven't, power grabbing greed remains and fanatics still exist

"so you think it is ok for Iran to have nukes"

Preferably not, no. Hence there was an agreement that prevented that, and Iran was sticking to that agreement. Until the present USA administration broke that agreement and is now putting lots of pressure on other countries to do the same.

 

"what we see all over the world and all through history are wars and conflict fuelled by religion and greed, some of us have become more civil - others have not"

Yes, totally agree.

 

"whatever the fanatical Iran does unfortunately effects us all, they wouldn't give a second thought to nuking Israel, some of us have learned from history unfortunately many haven't, power grabbing greed remains and fanatics still exist"

Again, it wouldn't affect us at all if the USA had stuck to the agreement. Bringing Israel and their power and land grabbing into this is IMO not a good idea.

 

Edited July 6, 20197 yr by stevenl

A Baiting post removed

6 hours ago, rooster59 said:

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 only escalates.  Hope everyone is prepared.  Is Thailand going to be out of the 'splatter-zone?'

The masses are led to believe this is about their 'security' when in reality this is all about controlling global resources.  Read Halford John Mackinder, Brzezinski, and Kissinger.  Instead the masses watch CNN, Fox or the BBC, and perhaps reads WaPo, the NYT or the Guardian then believe they are 'well-informed.' 

Anyway, maybe we'll get another world war this time around centered in the Levant that a certain subset of the Western population have been praying for as the US neocons seek to move Reza Pahlavi back into the seat of power and re-establish control of the Middle East energy markets including Iranian oil.

We've been at war since I was born; I well expect we'll be at war when I die.  Now there's the nature of the world we were born into.  Endless War.

Edited July 6, 20197 yr by connda

5 hours ago, bkk6060 said:

And one day you will thank him for it..

Very much doubt that !!!!

 

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

A very curiously timed highly provocative military action, given it has taken place at the precise moment the UK is changing it’s political leadership. 

 

Somebody thought this a good idea.

 

The question is who and why?

 

It's a conspiracy.

 

More likely than not, the ship's movement were tracked for a while now, and things were discussed beforehand. The window of opportunity to stop the vessel is not determined by UK politics, but by its course and location.

 

Whether or not it was a good idea is another matter. I think it more likely that this would have happened regardless of the political situation in the UK, though.

2 hours ago, Kiwiken said:

Of Course if Britain had done the same to a US or French ship there would be no retaliatory talk???

 

Of course, Britain wouldn't likely have much cause to do the same to a USA or French ship. But that should not deter posters from making inane what-if comments anyway.

2 hours ago, Kiwiken said:

The problem is all the pressure you bring to bear on the Iranian Regime only strengthen it. Youth and knowledge will bring change not external pressure

 

 

Is your assessment based on fact? The Iranian people support their government more in face of economic crisis, rampant corruption and possible war? Negative feelings toward the USA etc. aren't necessarily the same as automatic and full support for the regime. As for the latter part - how does the "knowledge" bit work under an authoritative regime such as Iran's?

15 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

It's a conspiracy.

 

More likely than not, the ship's movement were tracked for a while now, and things were discussed beforehand. The window of opportunity to stop the vessel is not determined by UK politics, but by its course and location.

 

Whether or not it was a good idea is another matter. I think it more likely that this would have happened regardless of the political situation in the UK, though.

I think it inconceivable that action to seize the vessel was taken without reference to political decision makers.

 

There is little or no political risks in failing to seize the vessel and a great deal of risk to doing so. 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I think it inconceivable that action to seize the vessel was taken without reference to political decision makers.

 

There is little or no political risks in failing to seize the vessel and a great deal of risk to doing so. 

 

 

 

Obviously, "political decision makers" were involved. There wasn't any suggestion it was an action taking by the military or intelligence services on their own. That's how things work. It still doesn't make the cut for the conspiracy scenario you're implying, though.

 

You seem to assert that the main consideration was political. Nothing much of substance offered to support this view.

 

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

"so you think it is ok for Iran to have nukes"

Preferably not, no. Hence there was an agreement that prevented that, and Iran was sticking to that agreement. Until the present USA administration broke that agreement and is now putting lots of pressure on other countries to do the same.

 

"what we see all over the world and all through history are wars and conflict fuelled by religion and greed, some of us have become more civil - others have not"

Yes, totally agree.

 

"whatever the fanatical Iran does unfortunately effects us all, they wouldn't give a second thought to nuking Israel, some of us have learned from history unfortunately many haven't, power grabbing greed remains and fanatics still exist"

Again, it wouldn't affect us at all if the USA had stuck to the agreement. Bringing Israel and their power and land grabbing into this is IMO not a good idea.

 

was Iran sticking to it ?

 

They are also involved in other terrorist activities in the ME and around the world, they deserve everything they get IMO - but hey it is just my opinion

24 minutes ago, smedly said:

was Iran sticking to it ?

 

They are also involved in other terrorist activities in the ME and around the world, they deserve everything they get IMO - but hey it is just my opinion

 

Yes, Iran was complying with terms. This was verified by relevant agencies, and signatories other than the USA did not see things otherwise.

 

Iran's other activities are what they are, but they did not and do not come under the terms of the JCPOA.

1 hour ago, smedly said:

was Iran sticking to it ?

 

They are also involved in other terrorist activities in the ME and around the world, they deserve everything they get IMO - but hey it is just my opinion

Yes, Iran was sticking to it. This is all about a power struggle between Shia and Sunni, with Sunni (the main cause of worldwide terrorism) and Israel, and therefor USA, on the same side. Iran's involvement in terrorism is just the stick those countries are using to hit Iran with.

Having said that, Iran is far from the white sheep it pretends to be, but that does not mean it deserves the treatment the 'allies' are no trying to dish out.

Edited July 6, 20197 yr by stevenl

10 hours ago, ezzra said:

Iran, feeling very insecure, cornered and worried became the neighbourhood bully, we will do this and that and harm you this way and that way if you don't do what we want you to do, that's basically all that the Mullahs have in their power now, threats, intimidations and retaliations, so all of a sudden Trump action on Iran doesn't look so bad or out of place...

Did you also so the mightly fleet of the EU, the biggest economic power of this planet ? All these blue ships...

Oh, you dd NOT see them, protecting our oil inflow ?

Because they do NOT EXIST...

Doing some research fails to uncover any current UN sanctions preventing Iran from trading its oil.

It is patently obvious that, whether asked by the US or not, the UK is doing what any good lapdog does - follow it's master.

it strikes me that this is an act of piracy as boarding a vessel on the high seas without proper legal (UN) support is just that.

No doubt I will be 'corrected' if this opinion doesn't fit with the misinformation & disinformation distributor.

i really wish to see the british arrogance doomed, would be nice to see if Iran seize a british ship on retaliation, just to tell the british fellow on the government to stop to be a cheap puppet for US policies..

34 minutes ago, khunken said:

Doing some research fails to uncover any current UN sanctions preventing Iran from trading its oil.

It is patently obvious that, whether asked by the US or not, the UK is doing what any good lapdog does - follow it's master.

it strikes me that this is an act of piracy as boarding a vessel on the high seas without proper legal (UN) support is just that.

No doubt I will be 'corrected' if this opinion doesn't fit with the misinformation & disinformation distributor.

Ship was seized under EU sanctions, not UN.

"A ban on imports of Syrian crude and petroleum products....."    www.hfw.com/Syria-Sanctions-Update

 

OTOH that sounds like a ban on imports OF,  not to Syria. Appears to be dated circa early 2012.

Edited July 6, 20197 yr by Ozman52

1 minute ago, Ozman52 said:

Ship was seized under EU sanctions, not UN.

"A ban on imports of Syrian crude and petroleum products....."    www.hfw.com/Syria-Sanctions-Update

 

OTOH that sounds like a ban on imports OF,  not to Syria. 

Maybe it was seized under EU sanctions but they have no legal base to seize a ship in international waters. The UK would be wise to release the ship under some face-saving spin as I wouldn't doubt that Iran will retaliate, and justifiably so.

1 minute ago, khunken said:

Maybe it was seized under EU sanctions but they have no legal base to seize a ship in international waters. The UK would be wise to release the ship under some face-saving spin as I wouldn't doubt that Iran will retaliate, and justifiably so.

If Iran does it would trigger some military response , right or wrong but that is what would happen.

 

perhaps part of the plan????

Edited July 6, 20197 yr by BestB

1 hour ago, khunken said:

but they have no legal base to seize a ship in international waters.

I suggest you look at a chart/map and read up on the relevant EU sanctions against Syria before making pointless statements like the one above!

Edited July 6, 20197 yr by scottiejohn