Allies play hard to get on U.S. proposal to protect oil shipping lanes

[snoop1130]

Allies play hard to get on U.S. proposal to protect oil shipping lanes

By Sylvia Westall, John Irish

 

FILE PHOTO: Members of the U.S. Navy Fifth Fleet prepare to escort journalists to a tanker at a U.S. NAVCENT facility near the port of Fujairah, United Arab Emirates June 19, 2019. The Fifth Fleet protects oil shipping lanes in the Middle East. REUTERS/Christopher Pike/File Photo

 

DUBAI/PARIS (Reuters) - The United States is struggling to win its allies’ support for an initiative to heighten surveillance of vital Middle East oil shipping lanes because of fears it will increase tension with Iran, six sources familiar with the matter said.

 

Washington proposed on July 9 stepping up efforts to safeguard strategic waters off Iran and Yemen where it blames Iran and its proxies for tanker attacks. Iran denies the charges.

 

But with Washington’s allies reluctant to commit new weaponry or fighting forces, a senior Pentagon official told Reuters on Thursday that the United States’ aim was not to set up a military coalition but to shine a “flashlight” in the region to deter attacks on commercial shipping.

 

Because of fears of confrontation, any involvement by Washington’s allies is likely be limited to naval personnel and equipment already in place - near the Strait of Hormuz in the Gulf and the Bab al-Mandab strait in the Red Sea, two Gulf sources and a British security source said.

 

“The Americans want to create an ‘alliance of the willing’ who confront future attacks,” a Western diplomat said. “Nobody wants to be on that confrontational course and part of a U.S. push against Iran.”

 

(Graphic: Tensions rise in strategic oil chokepoint - tmsnrt.rs/2FESiH4)

 

Addressing such concerns or possible misunderstandings, Kathryn Wheelbarger, one of the most senior policy officials at the Pentagon, told Reuters in an interview that the new initiative was “not about military confrontation.”

 

Under Washington’s proposal, the United States would provide coordinating ships and lead surveillance efforts while allies would patrol nearby waters and escort commercial vessels with their nation’s flags.

 

Iran has said foreign powers should leave securing shipping lanes to Tehran and other countries in the region.

 

France, which has a naval base in the United Arab Emirates, does not plan to escort ships and views the U.S. plan as counterproductive to easing tensions because Tehran would see it as anti-Iran, a French official said.

 

The British security source said it was not viable to escort every commercial vessel, a view shared by several other countries.

 

A senior Western official based in Beijing said there was “no way” China would join a maritime coalition. A South Korean official said Washington had yet to make any official request.

 

A decision by Japan to join such an initiative would be likely to inflame a divide in Japanese public opinion over sending troops abroad. Japan’s military has not fought overseas since World War Two.

 

“The Americans have been talking to anyone interested about setting something up, mainly looking to Asia as it’s of vital importance to their security of (oil) supply and asking for ships, but it’s gone a bit quiet,” a Gulf official said.

 

India has deployed two ships in the Gulf to protect Indian-flagged vessels since June 20. Other Asian oil importers are unlikely to have anything but a symbolic presence, such as the involvement of a liaison officer, officials and diplomats said.

 

“It’s just impossible. The Strait is already too crowded,” an Asian official said of an escort system in the Strait of Hormuz which is 21 miles (33 km) wide at its narrowest point.

 

A second Gulf official said: “We’re not going to do anything like that, we are not going to do anything on our own.”

 

RISING TENSION

 

Tensions rose further on Thursday after Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said they had seized a foreign tanker smuggling fuel. A U.S. military commander in the region said the United States would work “aggressively” to ensure free passage of vessels in and around the Strait of Hormuz.

 

Tension has mounted since U.S. President Donald Trump last year quit a 2015 nuclear pact under which Iran agreed to curtail its atomic program in return for relief from economic sanctions crippling its economy.

 

France, Britain and Germany, which with Russia and China are party to the agreement, have tried to rescue the deal and defuse tensions.

 

Failure to secure support for the maritime initiative would be a blow to efforts by the United States, and its Sunni Muslim allies Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, to isolate Shi’ite Muslim Iran and Iran-backed forces in the Middle East.

 

Saudi Arabia and the UAE are already patrolling the coastline off Yemen where they are leading a coalition battling the Iran-aligned Houthi movement, though the UAE has said it is scaling down its presence there.

 

Asked what role Riyadh could play in the U.S. initiative, a Saudi military official said it would be the role that the Saudi-led coalition has been playing for the past few years in the Red Sea as part of the war in Yemen, including escorting and securing commercial shipping.

 

The United States does not want to go it alone.

 

“There are enough resources in the region now for the job at hand. The Americans want an international stamp on this effort,” one of the Gulf sources said. “They (the United States) also don’t want to bear the financial burden.”

 

Technical and financial aspects, such as refueling, bunkering and maintenance costs, still need to be ironed out before countries sign up, the source said.

 

Policing burdens would largely fall on the United States, which has protected shipping lanes in the region for decades with its Bahrain-based Fifth Fleet. It also heads the Combined Maritime Forces, a 33-nation naval alliance that carries out security and counterpiracy operations in the region.

 

Britain has a base in Oman and China has a military base in Djibouti, which lies off the Bab al-Mandab strait. Beijing has had to tread softly in the region because it has close energy ties with both Iran and Saudi Arabia.

 

SMALL SHIPS

 

Riyadh and Abu Dhabi support U.S. sanctions on Iran, which lacks a strong conventional naval fleet but has many speed boats, portable anti-ship missile launchers and mines.

 

A U.S. State Department official, who asked not to be named, said Bahrain would host a working group meeting on maritime and aviation security in the autumn as part of a follow-up to a global conference in Warsaw in February that gathered some 60 nations to discuss stability in the Middle East.

 

Gulf states, which are big purchasers of Western arms, have invested more in air and land capabilities than in naval assets, and have little experience coordinating large naval missions.

 

The majority of vessels are small patrol craft and corvettes that would struggle on extended missions, said Tom Waldwyn, research associate for The Military Balance at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

 

Wheelbarger, the U.S. Pentagon official, suggested small, quick ships would be helpful. She said several countries has expressed interest in the initiative but did not name them.

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-07-19

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[MeePeeMai]

It won't take long.  As soon as one of their ships or tankers hits a mine or is snagged by the Iranian R.G. then they will quickly change their tune.  

[EVENKEEL]

I'm so glad to stop shipping, especially now with the way Iran is behaving. Good bye Dubai.

[from the home of CC]

As said earlier the trust is gone,  imo any other president would of gotten some support. And any other president wouldn't have engineered the U.S. into this situation in the first place..

[bristolboy]

26 minutes ago, marcusarelus said:

So countries first evaluate the leader of a country before deciding to honor treaties?  Hmmm, that's an interesting concept.  Wait till Boris gets on stage. ????

Do you recall when Trump was making noises about not honoring US commitments to Nato, which actually is a treaty?

[marcusarelus]

8 hours ago, bristolboy said:

What treaty would that be?

Nato

[marcusarelus]

7 hours ago, Sujo said:

Dont worry, trump will drop any treaty as soon as his thumbs hit the twitter button. 

 

Pity, treaties and allies used to mean something.

Well I imagine you will get to see very shortly.  

[bristolboy]

22 minutes ago, marcusarelus said:

Nato

You mean like in the case of Iraq?

[marcusarelus]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

You mean like in the case of Iraq?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO

[Cryingdick]

Let the "allies" play coy. America isn't threatened by Iran we have a presence and very few tankers in the area. We have oil at home the "allies" can defend their own vessels.  

[spidermike007]

Trump has gone out of his way to disavow our allies, criticize them at every opportunity, pay them no respect whatsoever, and talk on and on and on about what they owe the US, why they are not playing fair, and why they are not good friends of the US. Now, he asks for help. What on earth does this man, who does not have a common sense bone in his body, and is the worst negotiator around, expect from them at this point? Yes, sir. Whatever you say sir! Not going to happen. He has spend two years attempting to destroy alliances that took 50-100 years to build. 

 

I suggest he ask his dictator friends for help. He has spent so much effort befriending them, maybe Russia or North Korea can help the US, and prove just how deep those alliances are. 

[Tug]

The world leaders know Donald is unstable ignorant and stubborn many nato country’s have the capacity to take out Iran’s navy if it comes to that any sensible world leader wouldent want Donald to have control of anything of importance 

[marcusarelus]

18 minutes ago, Tug said:

The world leaders know Donald is unstable ignorant and stubborn many nato country’s have the capacity to take out Iran’s navy if it comes to that any sensible world leader wouldent want Donald to have control of anything of importance 

I don't think unstable and ignorant leadership precludes a person from being a military leader.  Most of the military leaders I've met during my 70 year life have been unstable and ignorant.  Nor can I think of any world leader off hand who I think is sensible.  Matter of fact all that I can think of are not sensible.  

[marcusarelus]

34 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Trump has gone out of his way to disavow our allies, criticize them at every opportunity, pay them no respect whatsoever, and talk on and on and on about what they owe the US, why they are not playing fair, and why they are not good friends of the US. Now, he asks for help. What on earth does this man, who does not have a common sense bone in his body, and is the worst negotiator around, expect from them at this point? Yes, sir. Whatever you say sir! Not going to happen. He has spend two years attempting to destroy alliances that took 50-100 years to build. 

 

I suggest he ask his dictator friends for help. He has spent so much effort befriending them, maybe Russia or North Korea can help the US, and prove just how deep those alliances are. 

Iran has taken two British tankers.  Wouldn't you imagine that the Brits would be asking Trump for help instead of the reverse? 

[bristolboy]

9 minutes ago, marcusarelus said:

You asked, "What treaty would that be?"  So, I told you, Nato.  

And I pointed out to you the example of Iraq. Did most of nato allies come to the aid of the US then? 

[EVENKEEL]

It's to everyone's interest to put Iran in their place. We aren't schoolchildren where liking someone is important, Are we? Push comes to shove I'm positive out allies will be there to lend a hand. Just like the Brits did not long ago when they boarded the tanker.

[marcusarelus]

7 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

And I pointed out to you the example of Iraq. Did most of nato allies come to the aid of the US then? 

A coalition of 35 allies fought on the American side.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_Gulf_War

[Chomper Higgot]

12 hours ago, marcusarelus said:

So countries first evaluate the leader of a country before deciding to honor treaties?  Hmmm, that's an interesting concept.  Wait till Boris gets on stage. ????

Where do you find the audacity to bring up ‘honouring treaties’ When this whole mess is rooted in Trump refusing to honour a treaty?

[Chomper Higgot]

17 minutes ago, marcusarelus said:

A coalition of 35 allies fought on the American side.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_Gulf_War

And learned from their mistake.

[geoffbezoz]

18 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

It's to everyone's interest to put Iran in their place. We aren't schoolchildren where liking someone is important, Are we? Push comes to shove I'm positive out allies will be there to lend a hand. Just like the Brits did not long ago when they boarded the tanker.

No doubt at the behest of the US to stir things even more. Todays news that the Iranians have apparently boarded a British registered vessel in open waters would not surprise me if this is another scam arranged by the US to wind things up further. Oh yes that "Iranian drone" the US claimed to have shot down in international airspace because it came to within 1000 yards of an American vessel.  No evidence and even the Americans state no evidence. Wouldn't surprise me it was just a bloody great bird they killed because they panicked.

[Chomper Higgot]

18 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

It's to everyone's interest to put Iran in their place. We aren't schoolchildren where liking someone is important, Are we? Push comes to shove I'm positive out allies will be there to lend a hand. Just like the Brits did not long ago when they boarded the tanker.

I’d agree it’s in everyone’s interest to return Iran to diplomacy, Away from

conflict and back to it’s rightful place in the International community.

 

Where I disagree is the ‘putting’ bit.

 

....

 

As we now see, and as expected, Iran has responded to Britain taking the Iranian tanker.

 

Imagine if we had an internationally backed agreement with Iran instead of this rising conflict.

[sammieuk1]

31 minutes ago, marcusarelus said:

Iran has taken two British tankers.  Wouldn't you imagine that the Brits would be asking Trump for help instead of the reverse? 

Brits are to busy fighting a Brexit war that's been raging for 3 years already and have taken many casualties including 2 PM's????

[bristolboy]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

And learned from their mistake.

I don't think that they felt the Gulf War was a mistake. Saddam had already invaded Kuwait and posed a real threat to the Saudis. Unfortunately he had to be stopped. And Europeans recognized it was in their self interest.

But for the Iraq war, as for the present situation, the Europeans recognized that the onus  there was on the USA. Just like the current situation.

[metisdead]

Some off topic posts and replies have been removed. 

 

Nonsense post and replies have been removed. 

[EVENKEEL]

10 minutes ago, geoffbezoz said:

No doubt at the behest of the US to stir things even more. Todays news that the Iranians have apparently boarded a British registered vessel in open waters would not surprise me if this is another scam arranged by the US to wind things up further. Oh yes that "Iranian drone" the US claimed to have shot down in international airspace because it came to within 1000 yards of an American vessel.  No evidence and even the Americans state no evidence. Wouldn't surprise me it was just a bloody great bird they killed because they panicked.

Lock your doors, they're coming to get you.....

[sirineou]

49 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

And I pointed out to you the example of Iraq. Did most of nato allies come to the aid of the US then? 

 The point was made that trump did not support NATO , so why NATO be so ready to support trump. trump was not president when the allies came to the aid of the US during the gulf war.

 

 

[bristolboy]

36 minutes ago, sirineou said:

 The point was made that trump did not support NATO , so why NATO be so ready to support trump. trump was not president when the allies came to the aid of the US during the gulf war.

 

 

Nor was he President when they mostly didn't come to the aid of George W. Bush before and during the Iraq War.. The fact is they won't help the USA not mainly out of animus against Trump, but because Trump is responsible for creating this totally unnecessary situation in the first place. 

[sirineou]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

Nor was he President when they mostly didn't come to the aid of George W. Bush before and during the Iraq War.. The fact is they won't help the USA not mainly out of animus against Trump, but because Trump is responsible for creating this totally unnecessary situation in the first place. 

 I think for the most part you are correct.

These are nor stupid people and though trump's base might be buying it, they are not.

But though they are not stupid, they are also human, they don't come from some ethereal place , different than you and me. Aside from some career moves and some luck they are you and me, and are governed by the same emotions that govern you and me. 

And trust me , as the British ambassadors report reflected (not an isolated sentiment  IMO)   they don't like trump.

[bristolboy]

11 minutes ago, sirineou said:

 I think for the most part you are correct.

These are nor stupid people and though trump's base might be buying it, they are not.

But though they are not stupid, they are also human, they don't come from some ethereal place , different than you and me. Aside from some career moves and some luck they are you and me, and are governed by the same emotions that govern you and me. 

And trust me , as the British ambassadors report reflected (not an isolated sentiment  IMO)   they don't like trump.

I wouldn't be surprised if they get some personal satisfaction out of this but these people are mainly looking out for their own national interests and, importantly, political interests. Bailing Trump out of the mess he as made probably wouldn't play too well in most European nations. Especially when it involves the Mideast.

[Opl]

24 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Nor was he President when they mostly didn't come to the aid of George W. Bush before and during the Iraq War.. The fact is they won't help the USA not mainly out of animus against Trump, but because Trump is responsible for creating this totally unnecessary situation in the first place. 

"In the May 2018 cable published by the Mail on Sunday, U.K. Ambassador Kim Darroch called Trump’s decision to abandon the international accord “an act of diplomatic vandalism, seemingly for ideological and personality reasons” because the pact “was Obama’s deal.”

He alleged the White House had no strategy for what would come after its withdrawal and “no sort of plan for reaching out to partners and allies.”