Britain weighs response to Iran Gulf crisis with few good options

[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.  

 

[Sealbash]

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.

Syria does, in fact, produce oil


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Krataiboy]

Memo to Theresa May (copy to Boris Johnson):

 

Iran is not Argentina.

[simple1]

26 minutes ago, Sealbash said:

Syria does, in fact, produce oil


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Syrian oil fields are currently mostly controlled by US backed Kurdish forces. Assad would need to import oil for his economy.

[Thaidream]

1 hour ago, Pedrogaz said:

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.

You have some valid points, but it is more complicated-

1. According to what I have read- the Iranian ship when seized was in the territorial waters of Gibraltar which is British territory (although Spain also claims the same waters as Spanish)

 

2.   The ship was an Iranian oil transport filled with oil headed for Syria which is under UN sanction while the US had Worldwide sanctions against Iran. The Americans asked the British Marines to seize the ship which they did.  The UK Government had to know the Iranians would be outraged and it is odd since the UK is a signatory to the US-Iran Nuclear agreement.

 

What is not clear to me is whether there is a UN resolution banning Syria from importing oil or some type of restriction as to amount. If so, the UK certainly  had every right to seize the ship.

 

3.  The whole issue of Iran sanctions- IMO- is absurd and is a case of Trump following the neo con philosophy of  John Bolton and the urging of Israel.  America plus the UK and other EU countries as well as Russia had signed an agreement that was to last 10 years . When the Us pulled out and reimpose sanctions chaos was .

created.  According to reports the UK and the others urged the US not to do this.

 

 As an American who understands how the US military operates-the Secretary of Defense General Mattis and his staff  were against abrogating the agreement. Mattis eventually resigned.

 

The pullout on the deal and  the UK s relationship with the US are now a big issue-  If the UK refuses to  abide by the sanctions- there will be a negative reaction from Trump and his  inner circle which could  have an adverse affect on Nato and European Security IMO, the British seizure of the ship was probably made under duress.

 

4.   If I was the UK- I would attempt to negotiate the release of the ship and I certainly would not send planes or British Troops to the area. I would also make it clear in private to the Americans that the UK will not be joining any coalition unless there is a major attack involving serious death and destruction.

 

The sad part of this whole rush to war is that Trump is being manipulated by those in his inner circle who desire war with Iran.  It is not the Us military that wants any war but it is they who will  fight and die .  Let's hope wiser people are in Number 10 Downing and the UK Parliament/

 

 

 

 

[BobBKK]

They took an Iranian ship and Iran took one of theirs.

[AGareth2]

have we heard from Sweden?

Although British flagged the ship is Swedish owned, or so I believe

[pegman]

3 hours ago, PhonThong said:

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

Well, then maybe we can see if Russia has sold or lent their S400 air defence system to Iran. From what's been getting reported those F-35's could be easy pickings.

 

Clearly Iran is in the right here. The only realistic action left for the Brit Twits is to get a credible 3rd party like Norway or Turkey to broker a settlement. A captured ship exchange. Maybe throw in a Spice Girls concert seeing the UK hi-jacked first. Don't hold your breath Boris waiting for the Oval Office draft dodger to bail you out. That ain't happening.

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, pegman said:

The only realistic action left for the Brit Twits is to get a credible 3rd party like Norway or Turkey to broker a settlement. A captured ship exchange. Maybe throw in a Spice Girls concert seeing the UK hi-jacked first. Don't hold your breath Boris waiting for the Oval Office draft dodger to bail you out. That ain't happening.

Well, apparently, Trump deputized Rand Paul, who is very opposed to foreign entanglements, to speak to the Iranians. And I've noted that Trump has dropped references to Iran's support of terrorism and making ballistic missiles. Those latter 2 were also originally cited as grounds for the sanctions.

[stevenl]

3 hours ago, Basil B said:

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...

Your last lines, yes, agree.

 

But no, only if you believe the American narrative were those attacks on shipping carried out by the Iranians. Also these more recent events point to Iranian retaliation, not Iranian conflict initiatives.

[nauseus]

5 hours ago, bristolboy said:

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.

No, you don't get it.

[bristolboy]

29 minutes ago, nauseus said:

No, you don't get it.

Typical troll response.

[Baerboxer]

11 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.

 

Your incredible knowledge of history is only surpassed by your even more incredible grasp of current wold events!

 

I salute you!

 

ps - Galtieri and his fascist Junta started the Falkland's War by illegally invading a British territory. Ironically mainly to divert the Argentinian people's attention away from their dire economic and financial governance. Responding to an invasion via the "diplomatic route" is likely to have been as successful as Chamberlain was at Munich!

 

PPS - the Iranians have taken advantage of a crap caretaker PM waiting to be replaces by an idiot or cretin. 

 

pps 2 - the Iranians "look we can do what you do" attitude is laudable. Now, let's nuke Tehran and see what they do!

[Baerboxer]

3 hours ago, pegman said:

Well, then maybe we can see if Russia has sold or lent their S400 air defence system to Iran. From what's been getting reported those F-35's could be easy pickings.

 

Clearly Iran is in the right here. The only realistic action left for the Brit Twits is to get a credible 3rd party like Norway or Turkey to broker a settlement. A captured ship exchange. Maybe throw in a Spice Girls concert seeing the UK hi-jacked first. Don't hold your breath Boris waiting for the Oval Office draft dodger to bail you out. That ain't happening.

 

Iran certainly isn't in the right. Two wrongs don't make a right. Lying about a collision - has any evidence been shown? Lying about the ships position - seized in Omani waters. 

 

The Iranian vessel was seized in Gibralta's waters, not international waters, under EU authority at US request. Spain had been asked to stop the vessel whilst it was in Spanish waters but the Spanish military wouldn't know it's arse from it's elbow and too slow to respond!

 

Russian defense equipment - always vaunted. Ask the Afghans, Iraqis and Syrians how good it usually turns out to be!

 

Time to play hardball. Remind the Ayatollah and cronies whose currently got nukes and who ain't ever gonna be allowed to have'em. 

[Baerboxer]

3 hours ago, stevenl said:

Your last lines, yes, agree.

 

But no, only if you believe the American narrative were those attacks on shipping carried out by the Iranians. Also these more recent events point to Iranian retaliation, not Iranian conflict initiatives.

 

Did you miss the photographic evidence then?

[geoffbezoz]

32 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Your incredible knowledge of history is only surpassed by your even more incredible grasp of current wold events!

 

I salute you!

 

ps - Galtieri and his fascist Junta started the Falkland's War by illegally invading a British territory. Ironically mainly to divert the Argentinian people's attention away from their dire economic and financial governance. Responding to an invasion via the "diplomatic route" is likely to have been as successful as Chamberlain was at Munich!

 

PPS - the Iranians have taken advantage of a crap caretaker PM waiting to be replaces by an idiot or cretin. 

 

pps 2 - the Iranians "look we can do what you do" attitude is laudable. Now, let's nuke Tehran and see what they do!

Yes but intense diplomacy was never resorted to, that's the point, but perhaps you did not grasp that. The issue of the Argie scrap men going to South Georgia, should have sent the alarm bells ringing forcing Thatcher to act , but no, she knew but it suited her to do nothing even though they had land illegally and of course this precipitated the invasion. So doing nothing was her leadership stance to her government of the day.  Strangely there are further parallels. It was claimed in government papers released in 2012 that Thatcher had only 2 days warning of the impending invasion, a complete failing on the part of British Intelligence.  There appears to be a complete failing on the part of this current UK government on the impact of seizing an  Iranian tanker at the behest of the US and the repercussions that would surely follow.

 

Dropping a nuclear device on Tehran as you suggest  is my book an immature response and of course would precipitate something the world should avoid , well for those that have the mental capacity to understand the repercussions of such an act would do anyway.

 

I do however agree with you that the TM is shortly to be replaced but someone totally unsuitable as a PM in the current state of British politics whilst calling them a cretin or an idiot appears rather immature.

Edited July 22, 2019 by geoffbezoz

[bristolboy]

36 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Your incredible knowledge of history is only surpassed by your even more incredible grasp of current wold events!

 

I salute you!

 

ps - Galtieri and his fascist Junta started the Falkland's War by illegally invading a British territory. Ironically mainly to divert the Argentinian people's attention away from their dire economic and financial governance. Responding to an invasion via the "diplomatic route" is likely to have been as successful as Chamberlain was at Munich!

 

PPS - the Iranians have taken advantage of a crap caretaker PM waiting to be replaces by an idiot or cretin. 

 

pps 2 - the Iranians "look we can do what you do" attitude is laudable. Now, let's nuke Tehran and see what they do!

Actually, most likely it was the Americans who took advantage of a crap caretaker PM by getting the UK to seize an Iranian ship,

And your remark about nuking Iran is lunacy. You a Trump fan much?

[puipuitom]

12 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?).

Yes, 30 years ago, when the UK still had a fleet.

[puipuitom]

10 hours ago, Basil B said:

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.

To avoid Iran can do after 2025 whatever it wants in the nuclear field. Rockets as carrier to bing these nukes to Europe and the US they continue to develop.

[puipuitom]

11 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

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!

Why we, Europeans, would stop Assad to get in strategic materials ( weapons, fule etc) to destroy the last strongholds of the rebels ? We simply absorb another 1 million Syrian refugees… or.. use the same system at the borders as the DDR used for decades to keep their citizens in: automatic shooting machine guns, mines, electric wire etc.

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Did you miss the photographic evidence then?

There has been a video released of some people disassembling a mine. No evidence has come forward of people responsible for attaching it, let alone of their nationality.

 

So there has been no evidence of the Iranians being responsible for mining the tankers.

[OneMoreFarang]

26 minutes ago, puipuitom said:

Why we, Europeans, would stop Assad to get in strategic materials ( weapons, fule etc) to destroy the last strongholds of the rebels ? We simply absorb another 1 million Syrian refugees… or.. use the same system at the borders as the DDR used for decades to keep their citizens in: automatic shooting machine guns, mines, electric wire etc.

Assad gets all the oil he wants from Putin.

The Iranian taker was not about Syria. You know it, I know it and the rest of the world knows it.

[puipuitom]

5 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

Memo to Theresa May (copy to Boris Johnson):

Iran is not Argentina.

Boris probably will not read it and if… ask Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe how stupid the then British minister of Foreign Affairs succeeded to make her situation a lot worse.

 

[HiSoLowSoNoSo]

5 hours ago, AGareth2 said:

have we heard from Sweden?

Although British flagged the ship is Swedish owned, or so I believe

Yes we are manning the viking ships right now. We will issue each crew an ample supply of the Red spotted Mushroom (Fly Agaric) so they all get berserk and rape and plunder every Iranian village (the rape part will only be for the good looking girls). 

Edited July 22, 2019 by HiSoLowSoNoSo

[Thongkorn]

1 hour ago, puipuitom said:

Yes, 30 years ago, when the UK still had a fleet.

Britain does not need to got to War. Britain has more Soft power than America, they can do it Financially,

[bristolboy]

15 minutes ago, Thongkorn said:

Britain does not need to got to War. Britain has more Soft power than America, they can do it Financially,

If Britain had more soft power than the USA, this whole Iranian mess wouldn't be happening. It's the potential sanctions that the US can impose on foreign business that do business with Iraq that is at the root of this problem.

[Morch]

8 hours ago, pegman said:

Well, then maybe we can see if Russia has sold or lent their S400 air defence system to Iran. From what's been getting reported those F-35's could be easy pickings.

 

Clearly Iran is in the right here. The only realistic action left for the Brit Twits is to get a credible 3rd party like Norway or Turkey to broker a settlement. A captured ship exchange. Maybe throw in a Spice Girls concert seeing the UK hi-jacked first. Don't hold your breath Boris waiting for the Oval Office draft dodger to bail you out. That ain't happening.

 

Iran isn't "clearly in the right". Even if it was, it would require more substance than you offer. Just saying so doesn't make it so.

[Morch]

8 hours ago, stevenl said:

Your last lines, yes, agree.

 

But no, only if you believe the American narrative were those attacks on shipping carried out by the Iranians. Also these more recent events point to Iranian retaliation, not Iranian conflict initiatives.

 

So when Iran decides to "retaliate", with full knowledge it could make matters worse, that's an acceptable and reasonable course of action?

 

Unlike yourself, I don't think the Iranian regime is quite as simple when it comes to these matters. They do not simply react. Rather, they act in a manner which advances their goals. In this case (and others) making sure that the current Gulf crisis is taken "seriously".

[Morch]

3 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Assad gets all the oil he wants from Putin.

The Iranian taker was not about Syria. You know it, I know it and the rest of the world knows it.

 

I doubt you know as much as you think you do. What you pronounce regarding "the world knows" doesn't carry much weight either.

 

 

[Thongkorn]

3 hours ago, bristolboy said:

If Britain had more soft power than the USA, this whole Iranian mess wouldn't be happening. It's the potential sanctions that the US can impose on foreign business that do business with Iraq that is at the root of this problem.

Do some resurch you will find i am right Britain has more soft power than America.