Iran threatens British shipping in retaliation for tanker seizure

[khunken]

8 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

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!

I suggest you read up on the UN Law of the Sea which allows transit through the strait without the UK, Spain or Morocco (which all have claim to some of the waters) acing like pirates (which the latter two didn't) instead of making ignorant statements.

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, vessels passing through the strait do so under the regime of transit passage

EU sanctions do not override UN conventions or resolutions.

 

[scottiejohn]

9 minutes ago, khunken said:

I suggest you read up on the UN Law of the Sea which allows transit through the strait without the UK, Spain or Morocco (which all have claim to some of the waters) acing like pirates (which the latter two didn't) instead of making ignorant statements.

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, vessels passing through the strait do so under the regime of transit passage

EU sanctions do not override UN conventions or resolutions.

 

I think you are missing the bit about "innocent passage" which she appears to have breached.

You also do not respond to my point regarding the position of the boarding. Only if the boarding was in "Morocco" waters and not "median waters" could there be any dispute (from your comment above).

You do not appear to know the UNCLOS or EU/UN sanctions laws pertinent to this case.

Edited July 6, 2019 by scottiejohn

[khunken]

26 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

I think you are missing the bit about "innocent passage" which she appears to have breached.

You also do not respond to my point regarding the position of the boarding. Only if the boarding was in "Morocco" waters and not "median waters" could there be any dispute (from your comment above).

You do not appear to know the UNCLOS or EU/UN sanctions laws pertinent to this case.

You do not appear to know that EU sanctions target Syrian oil exports. There are no EU or UN sanctions on Syria importing oil. There are  US sanctions on Iranian oil exports which is really what the UK is blindly following.

Edited July 6, 2019 by khunken

[JAG]

6 hours ago, Morch said:

 

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.

 

Nothing of substance no, but given that those who would have been taking the political decision know that they are unlikely to be in office in a couple of weeks, they may have found the temptation to stir the pot for their successors irresistible.

 

Petty and venal yes, but have you been following British politics of late?

[Baerboxer]

5 hours ago, Jerry787 said:

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..

 

Who knows what wonderful country you sprouted from.

 

The ship was seized in Gibraltar waters, as it was suspected of breaking EU sanctions. The Gibraltar government requested the assistance of British military forces to carry out it's EU obligations.  

[Morch]

4 hours ago, khunken said:

You do not appear to know that EU sanctions target Syrian oil exports. There are no EU or UN sanctions on Syria importing oil. There are  US sanctions on Iranian oil exports which is really what the UK is blindly following.

 

As far as I understand, the Syrian entity (firm/government arm - whatever) holding or owning the destination refinery is specifically under sanctions. Quite often, there are general sanctions and then there are specific individuals and entities which are targeted with a harsher version of the same.

 

Not that I doubt your legal expertise, but I assume that the UK government, Gibraltar authorities, relevant USA agencies and the EU are quite aware of what sanctions are on, and what legalities are involved.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, JAG said:

Nothing of substance no, but given that those who would have been taking the political decision know that they are unlikely to be in office in a couple of weeks, they may have found the temptation to stir the pot for their successors irresistible.

 

Petty and venal yes, but have you been following British politics of late?

 

Still sounds doubtful. All the more so when it isn't too clear how things will pan out and who might benefit or lose (politically).

[Lucifer999]

Trump is an idiot who lost 80% off the vote in his home state of new york the people that know him best ... Strawman ...

[Kiwiken]

The problem is that many of you talk about stopping Iran developing Nuclear Weapons that was the approach and meaning of the deal that Trump pulled out of. Iran was adhering to the agreement. So if Israel and the USA have worries that Iran will now develop an Atom Bomb then they have only themselves to blame. Britain has picked its side. I for One do not want a Nuclear Armed Iran because given the obsession for punishing the Iranian people by economic sanctions. keeping the present Regime in power is guaranteed. Taunt any Animal and corner it and eventually it will strike out.

After all sanctions have worked on North Korea haven't they?

Why does the USA, United Kingdom not show similar concern to Pakistan as they do to the former two.

[Morch]

12 hours ago, Kiwiken said:

The problem is that many of you talk about stopping Iran developing Nuclear Weapons that was the approach and meaning of the deal that Trump pulled out of. Iran was adhering to the agreement. So if Israel and the USA have worries that Iran will now develop an Atom Bomb then they have only themselves to blame. Britain has picked its side. I for One do not want a Nuclear Armed Iran because given the obsession for punishing the Iranian people by economic sanctions. keeping the present Regime in power is guaranteed. Taunt any Animal and corner it and eventually it will strike out.

After all sanctions have worked on North Korea haven't they?

Why does the USA, United Kingdom not show similar concern to Pakistan as they do to the former two.

 

I wouldn't know what the opinion that given the sanctions, the Iranian regime's survival is "guaranteed". You opined, on several past topics and posts that the pressure will increase public support for the regime, but failed to support this with anything much. On the other hand, there were protests and riots harshly put down last year. Guess not everyone got your memo.

 

Pakistan already got nuclear weapons, and it's been that way for a while now. Once the cat is out of the bag, the rules change.