Britain weighs response to Iran Gulf crisis with few good options

[webfact]

Britain weighs response to Iran Gulf crisis with few good options

By Parisa Hafezi and Peter Graff

 

A boat of Iranian Revolutionary Guard sails next to Stena Impero, a British-flagged vessel owned by Stena Bulk, at Bandar Abbas port, July 21, 2019. Iran, Mizan News Agency/WANA Handout via REUTERS

 

DUBAI/LONDON (Reuters) - Britain was weighing its next moves in the Gulf tanker crisis on Sunday, with few good options apparent as a recording emerged showing that the Iranian military defied a British warship when it boarded and seized a ship three days ago.

 

Prime Minister Theresa May's office said she would chair a meeting of Britain's COBR emergency response committee on Monday morning to discuss the crisis.

 

Little clue has been given by Britain on how it plans to respond after Iranian Revolutionary Guards rappelled from helicopters and seized the Stena Impero in the Strait of Hormuz on Friday in apparent retaliation for the British capture of an Iranian tankertwo weeks earlier.

 

Footage obtained by Reuters from an Iranian news agency on Sunday showed the tanker docked in an Iranian port -- with Iran's flag now hoisted atop.

 

Iran's ambassador to Britain warned against escalating tensions on Sunday as a UK official declined to rule out sanctions in response to Tehran's seizure of a British-flagged oil tanker. Mia Womersley reports

 

The British government is expected to announce its next steps in a speech to parliament on Monday. But experts on the region say there are few obvious steps London can take at a time when the United States has already imposed the maximum possible economic sanctions, banning all Iranian oil exports worldwide.

 

"We rant and rave and we shout at the ambassador and we hope it all goes away," said Tim Ripley, a British defence expert who writes about the Gulf for Jane's Defence Weekly.

 

"I don't see at this point in time us being able to offer a concession that can resolve the crisis. Providing security and escort for future ships is a different matter."

 

A day after calling the Iranian action a "hostile act", top British officials kept comparatively quiet on Sunday, making clear that they had yet to settle on a response.

 

"We are going to be looking at a series of options," junior defence minister Tobias Ellwood told Sky News. "We will be speaking with our colleagues, our international allies, to see what can actually be done.

 

"Our first and most important responsibility is to make sure we get a solution to the issue to do with the current ship, make sure other British-flagged ships are safe to operate in these waters and then look at the wider picture."

 

GRAPHIC: Iran seizes British-flagged oil tanker -  

 

MONTHS OF CONFRONTATION

The Iranian capture of the ship in the global oil trade's most important waterway was the latest escalation in three months of spiralling confrontation with the West that began when new, tighter U.S. sanctions took effect at the start of May.

 

Washington imposed the sanctions after President Donald Trump pulled out of a deal signed by his predecessor Barack Obama, which had provided Iran access to world trade in return for curbs on its nuclear programme.

 

European countries including Britain have been caught in the middle. They disagreed with the U.S. decision to quit the nuclear deal but have so far failed to offer Iran another way to receive the deal's promised economic benefits.

 

Britain was thrust more directly into the confrontation on July 4, when its Royal Marines seized an Iranian tanker off the coast of Gibraltar. Britain accused it of violating sanctions on Syria, prompting repeated Iranian threats of retaliation.

 

While Iran's official line is that its capture of the Stena Impero was because of safety issues, it has done little to hide that the move was retaliatory. The tactics it used -- with masked troops rappelling from helicopters -- matched those the British had used two weeks before.

 

Parliament speaker Ali Larijani spelled it out more clearly on Sunday, telling a parliament session: "The Revolutionary Guards responded to Britain's hijacking of the Iranian tanker."

 

Iran's Foreign Minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, blamed Washington and Trump's hawkish national security adviser John Bolton for luring Britain into conflict.

 

"Having failed to lure @realDonaldTrump into War of the Century ... @AmbJohnBolton is turning his venom against the UK in hopes of dragging it into a quagmire," Zarif wrote on Twitter. "Only prudence and foresight can thwart such ploys."

 

RADIO MESSAGES

In a letter to the U.N. Security Council, Britain said the Stena Impero was approached by Iranian forces in Omani territorial waters, where it was exercising its lawful right of passage, and that the action "constitutes illegal interference".

 

Britain's warship in the Gulf, the HMS Montrose, contacted an Iranian patrol vessel in an effort to ward off a boarding of the Stena Impero, according to radio messages provided to Reuters by maritime security firm Dryad Global.

 

"Please confirm that you are not intending to violate international law by unlawfully attempting to board," the Montrose said in the radio message.

 

The Iranian patrol boat is heard instructing the Stena Impero to alter course. Responding to the Montrose, it says it intends to "inspect the ship for security purposes".

 

Defence expert Ripley noted that Iran's choice of target appeared to have been calibrated to test Britain's response without provoking a bigger crisis.

 

Unlike the Iranian tanker seized a fortnight earlier, which was carrying a valuable cargo of 2 million barrels of oil, the Stena Impero was on its way to the Gulf and empty at the time it was seized. The 23 crew are mainly Indians and include no British citizens, the presence of which might have led to calls in London to take more drastic action, Ripley said.

 

He added that Iran is likely to view any British response through the wider prism of its conflict with the United States.

 

"If the Americans are going to continue to enforce this embargo, there's no incentive for the Iranians not to take more tankers. What have they got to lose?" said Ripley.

 

An Iranian official who asked not to be identified made a similar point.

 

"Iran is displaying its power without entering a military confrontation," the official said. "This is the result of America's mounting pressure on Iran."

 

(Additional reporting by Elizabeth Piper in London, Asma Sharif, Lisa Barrington and Tuqa Khalid in Dubai; Writing by Parisa Hafezi and Peter Graff; Editing by David Goodman)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-07-22

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[Somtamnication]

This doesn't look good. I hope the Iranians free the crew and the ship. Unlike other world leaders who give out bloated threats, the UK does not play. (Remember the Falklands?).

[geoffbezoz]

28 minutes ago, Somtamnication said:

This doesn't look good. I hope the Iranians free the crew and the ship. Unlike other world leaders who give out bloated threats, the UK does not play. (Remember the Falklands?).

Yes I remember it very well in a contrived unnecessary war that killed 255 British Service ma, a war deliberately contrived by that anti Christ Thatcher who refused to take the diplomatic route, the sole purpose of which was to get her an election win. At that time we were wholly reliant upon the Americans for support and Chile for a land base as then the UK had only a half of a naval force it should have had.

 

Now the UK Navy has a small fraction of even that, a point raised this weekend by the Minister. Couple that with the fact that this potential conflict is being contrived by Trump, and the British are helpless to avoid doing what they are told by him due to gutless politicians, I hope yet another Middle East catastrophe, purposely engineered by the US to boost Trumps next election chances (or so he thinks), is avoided.

 

However the only thing that the British can now do in retaliation on their own against the Iranians is wait for that fool Boris to become PM so that he can attack them with bile and bluster and perhaps blow is front teeth out at them.

[OneMoreFarang]

Imagine a couple of small kids with toys.

Peter grabs the truck from Tom and hides it.

And not surprisingly Tom is upset about this and he tells Peter: I will grab one of your toys.

Peter tells him: Don't do that, my father is a big guy!

But Tom thinks it's only fair to take one of Peter's toys. So he does exactly that and he hides Peter's ship.

And now?

I am sure young kids would be able to solve this problem: Peter returns the truck and Tom returns the ship and they can play again with each other. And they learn that there is a reaction to every action.

 

Why are the US and UK politicians so stupid? Kids could solve it!

[Somtamnication]

...well, he killed it to spite Obama. This guy is dangerous!

[Basil B]

25 minutes ago, Somtamnication said:

...well, he killed it to spite Obama. This guy is dangerous!

Which is why no one wants to join the American lead Battle Group to protect shipping in the Straits of Hormuz.

America did start it by ripping up the treaty.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, geoffbezoz said:

Yes I remember it very well in a contrived unnecessary war that killed 255 British Service ma, a war deliberately contrived by that anti Christ Thatcher who refused to take the diplomatic route, the sole purpose of which was to get her an election win. At that time we were wholly reliant upon the Americans for support and Chile for a land base as then the UK had only a half of a naval force it should have had.

 

Now the UK Navy has a small fraction of even that, a point raised this weekend by the Minister. Couple that with the fact that this potential conflict is being contrived by Trump, and the British are helpless to avoid doing what they are told by him due to gutless politicians, I hope yet another Middle East catastrophe, purposely engineered by the US to boost Trumps next election chances (or so he thinks), is avoided.

 

However the only thing that the British can now do in retaliation on their own against the Iranians is wait for that fool Boris to become PM so that he can attack them with bile and bluster and perhaps blow is front teeth out at them.

Ah. So Thatcher called the Argentinian generals and said: "Do me a favour please gentlemen? Invade the Falklands, without warning, so that I can then come down there and kick you out to help me win another election?". Gracias. Maggie T (anti Christ and bar).

[PhonThong]

2 hours ago, geoffbezoz said:

Yes I remember it very well in a contrived unnecessary war that killed 255 British Service ma, a war deliberately contrived by that anti Christ Thatcher who refused to take the diplomatic route, the sole purpose of which was to get her an election win. At that time we were wholly reliant upon the Americans for support and Chile for a land base as then the UK had only a half of a naval force it should have had.

 

Now the UK Navy has a small fraction of even that, a point raised this weekend by the Minister. Couple that with the fact that this potential conflict is being contrived by Trump, and the British are helpless to avoid doing what they are told by him due to gutless politicians, I hope yet another Middle East catastrophe, purposely engineered by the US to boost Trumps next election chances (or so he thinks), is avoided.

 

However the only thing that the British can now do in retaliation on their own against the Iranians is wait for that fool Boris to become PM so that he can attack them with bile and bluster and perhaps blow is front teeth out at them.

Why are you blaming Trump? The Brits took the Iranian ship, not the Americans.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, PhonThong said:

Why are you blaming Trump? The Brits took the Iranian ship, not the Americans.

And they did so with a Government in the midst of changing leaders, the sitting PM essentially neutered in all respects of political power.

 

Those in the UK who profess a fear of the UK joining a fictitious 'EU Army', need to wake up to the reality of the UK military being a handy 'foreign legion' for the US.

 

Find out who authorised the capture of the Iranian tanker at such a critical time and why they did so before sharpening sabres for war. 

[nauseus]

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And they did so with a Government in the midst of changing leaders, the sitting PM essentially neutered in all respects of political power.

 

Those in the UK who profess a fear of the UK joining a fictitious 'EU Army', need to wake up to the reality of the UK military being a handy 'foreign legion' for the US.

 

Find out who authorised the capture of the Iranian tanker at such a critical time and why they did so before sharpening sabres for war. 

 

Those who believe that the prospect of an EU army is fictitious need to wake up, period.

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, Somtamnication said:

This doesn't look good. I hope the Iranians free the crew and the ship. Unlike other world leaders who give out bloated threats, the UK does not play. (Remember the Falklands?).

You really think this situation is analagous to the Falklands? And how do you think the British public is going to react if the UK responds with military action? The Iraq war isn't exactly a treasured memory amongst the UK public. What politician in his right mind would authorize such action?

And there are credible reports that this seizure was in response  to the UK, acting at Amerian's behest to seize that Iranian oil tanker.r.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

 

Those who believe that the prospect of an EU army is fictitious need to wake up, period.

I think they need to wake up to the UK fighting another US war. 

 

We can deal with your unfounded fears at a later date. 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

You really think this situation is analagous to the Falklands? And how do you think the British public is going to react if the UK responds with military action? The Iraq war isn't exactly a treasured memory amongst the UK public. What politician in his right mind would authorize such action?

All this because the UK once again became the USA's catspaw and seized that Iranian tanker.

You nailed it.

 

What politician in his right mind would authorize such action?

 

Cometh the hour, cometh the man. 

 

[nauseus]

15 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I think they need to wake up to the UK fighting another US war. 

 

We can deal with your unfounded fears at a later date. 

It may amaze you to learn that there have been US/UK cooperative military operations for decades. You will not be able to convince me that allowing the EU direct what is left of our armed forces could ever be a good idea, so don't waste your time.  

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, nauseus said:

It may amaze you to learn that there have been US/UK cooperative military operations for decades. You will not be able to convince me that allowing the EU direct what is left of our armed forces could ever be a good idea, so don't waste your time.  

I get it. The choice for the UK is either to support the USA in its Iran policy or put UK soldiers under the leadership of the EU.

Yours is a very very lame attempt at deflection.

[evadgib]

1 hour ago, car720 said:

Brittania no longer rules the waves.

But it once did though eh?

Back on topic:

 

Maritime security in the Gulf: UK government response

 

Strait of Hormuz incident: UK government letter to UN Security Council President

 

Strait of Hormuz incident: Foreign Secretary calls with French and German foreign ministers

 

Building peace and saving lives through government fund

 

 

 

[Rimmer]

A post and a reply have been removed:

 

14) You will not post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles). Please only post a link, the headline and the first three sentences.

[PhonThong]

38 minutes ago, nauseus said:

It may amaze you to learn that there have been US/UK cooperative military operations for decades. You will not be able to convince me that allowing the EU direct what is left of our armed forces could ever be a good idea, so don't waste your time.  

Well, the UK, just started receiving brand new F-35 5th generation aircraft from the U.S... Will have to try them out somewhere.

[Jonah Tenner]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

What politician in his right mind would authorize such action?

Whatever gave you the idea that there are any politicians who are in their right mind?

[Russell17au]

There are several issues with this. The USA, France, UK, Germany all signed a deal with Iran but now the USA under the power of Donald Trump decided that they were not going to honour that deal and as far as I am concerned the USA has illegally imposed sanctions against Iran. What was the location of the Iranian oil tanker that the UK have seized? Was this tanker in International waters? If this tanker was in International waters then the UK had committed piracy as it does not have the power to interfere with vessels unless those vessels have entered their territorial waters. The only thing that needs to be done here is for the other countries that signed the deal with Iran is to tell the USA that they are going to honour that deal and that they will not enforce any sanctions that the USA wants to impose on IRAN and that the UK release the Iranian tanker without delay and to not interfere with any of their ships at sea. If the USA want to start another war so that they can make more money by selling their arms then tell them to go jump, there have been too many innocent lives lost during useless wars. This whole thing stinks of Donald Trump wanting everyone to cowtow to him and the USA and to start another war that he will do the same as he did with the Vietnam war and that is to go and hide like the coward that he is

[Basil B]

1 hour ago, PhonThong said:

Why are you blaming Trump? The Brits took the Iranian ship, not the Americans.

It was at the request of the American Government, I do not know how much arm twisting was involved.

 

But again in the western civilized world is it not accepted that a police officer can stop anyone in the street who they believe is acting suspiciously and ask them what they are doing in order to prevent a crime? 

 

But to date the Grace 1 Crew and Iran have failed to give a plausible explanation of what she was doing. 

 

And do not forget the attacks on shipping carried out by the Iranians that predate the the seizure of the Grace 1.

 

But this really started when Trump tore up the Nuclear Deal just to spite Obama...

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

It may amaze you to learn that there have been US/UK cooperative military operations for decades. You will not be able to convince me that allowing the EU direct what is left of our armed forces could ever be a good idea, so don't waste your time.  

Yes  I am very aware of US/UK cooperative military operations, they don't often work out so well for the UK. 

 

I seem to recall the UK getting dragged into a US war in the Middle East on the basis of fake allegations presented by the US and that the UK PM at the time, a Mr Tony Blair, is frequently referred to by some members* on this forum as a 'war criminal'.

 

* No names no pack drill.

[IssanMichael]

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

Ah. So Thatcher called the Argentinian generals and said: "Do me a favour please gentlemen? Invade the Falklands, without warning, so that I can then come down there and kick you out to help me win another election?". Gracias. Maggie T (anti Christ and bar).

Glad you replied to one of the most stupid of posts

[bristolboy]

33 minutes ago, Jonah Tenner said:

Whatever gave you the idea that there are any politicians who are in their right mind?

Well then amend that to "any politician who is not, electorally speaking, suicidal.

[Pedrogaz]

Theseizure of the Iranian vessel by the British was illegal. EU sanctions apply only to EU countries and not non-EU countries who wish to trade with each other such as Iran and Syria.....so Britain trading with Syria would break EU law....Syria trading with Iran does not.

The Iranian ship, assuming it was indeed headed to Syria, for which we only have the word of the consistently and entirely trustworthy Americans, was breaking Iranian sanctions. Britain should not have apprehended the ship as EU policy is that US sanctions do not apply to non US jurisdictions. EU and US law are in conflict....what Britain has done to appease the US is to take the US side against an EU foreign policy and committed an illegal act of piracy.

End of story. GIVE BACK THE IRANIAN TANKER.

[Basil B]

21 minutes ago, Russell17au said:

There are several issues with this. The USA, France, UK, Germany all signed a deal with Iran but now the USA under the power of Donald Trump decided that they were not going to honour that deal and as far as I am concerned the USA has illegally imposed sanctions against Iran. What was the location of the Iranian oil tanker that the UK have seized? Was this tanker in International waters? If this tanker was in International waters then the UK had committed piracy as it does not have the power to interfere with vessels unless those vessels have entered their territorial waters. The only thing that needs to be done here is for the other countries that signed the deal with Iran is to tell the USA that they are going to honour that deal and that they will not enforce any sanctions that the USA wants to impose on IRAN and that the UK release the Iranian tanker without delay and to not interfere with any of their ships at sea. If the USA want to start another war so that they can make more money by selling their arms then tell them to go jump, there have been too many innocent lives lost during useless wars. This whole thing stinks of Donald Trump wanting everyone to cowtow to him and the USA and to start another war that he will do the same as he did with the Vietnam war and that is to go and hide like the coward that he is

The British seized the Grace 1 because they believed (America said so) she was supplying oil to Iran in violation of EU sanctions on Syria.

 

Not American sanctions on Iran.

 

[muffy]

nuke Iran peace forever ????????

[Morch]

18 minutes ago, Basil B said:

The British seized the Grace 1 because they believed (America said so) she was supplying oil to Iran in violation of EU sanctions on Syria.

 

Not American sanctions on Iran.

 

 

And, let me add, that the Grace 1 was in Gibraltar's territorial waters when boarded. A lot of waffle about piracy and international passage rights etc. on these "discussions". Even more than that, the tanker was to resupply in Gibraltar, so not merely "passage". I think that's the basis of applying the EU sanctions bit - if the Grace 1 would have simply passed through, complaints would have had more of a point. 

[Russell17au]

52 minutes ago, Basil B said:

The British seized the Grace 1 because they believed (America said so) she was supplying oil to Iran in violation of EU sanctions on Syria.

 

Not American sanctions on Iran.

 

You have got it all ass up. Syria does not produce oil, Iran does and the Grace 1 was delivering oil from Iran to Syria and it was on the American world wide sanctions on Iran oil sales that the Grace 1 was seized.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Yes  I am very aware of US/UK cooperative military operations, they don't often work out so well for the UK. 

 

I seem to recall the UK getting dragged into a US war in the Middle East on the basis of fake allegations presented by the US and that the UK PM at the time, a Mr Tony Blair, is frequently referred to by some members* on this forum as a 'war criminal'.

  

* No names no pack drill.

How they work out is not the point.

 

Unfortunately, Blair seemed as convinced as anyone of the presence of WMD in Iraq, even with his own independent intelligence departments to advise him (independent of the Americans). Like most things, I suppose we'll never know the whole truth about that.