Jump to content








Iranian tanker Adrian Darya 1 photographed off Syrian port Tartus: U.S. satellite firm


rooster59

Recommended Posts

Iranian tanker Adrian Darya 1 photographed off Syrian port Tartus: U.S. satellite firm

 

2019-09-07T050435Z_2_LYNXNPEF8608H_RTROPTP_4_MIDEAST-IRAN-TANKER-GIBRALTAR.JPG

FILE PHOTO: A crew member takes pictures with a mobile phone on Iranian oil tanker Adrian Darya 1, previously named Grace 1, as it sits anchored after the Supreme Court of the British territory lifted its detention order, in the Strait of Gibraltar, Spain, August 18, 2019. REUTERS/Jon Nazca/Files

 

(Reuters) - The Iranian oil tanker Adrian Darya 1 at the centre of a dispute between Tehran and Western powers, which went dark off Syria earlier in the week, has been photographed by satellite off the Syrian port of Tartus, Maxar Technologies Inc., a U.S. space technology company said on Saturday.

 

Maxar's supplied image shows the tanker Adrian Darya 1 very close to Tartus on Sept. 6.

 

The ship appeared to have turned off its transponder in the Mediterranean west of Syria, Refinitiv ship-tracking data showed on Tuesday.

 

The tanker, which is loaded with Iranian crude oil, sent its last signal giving its position between Cyprus and Syria sailing north at 15:53 GMT on Monday, the data showed.

 

The vessel, formerly named Grace 1, was detained by British Royal Marine commandos off Gibraltar on July 4 as it was suspected to be en route to Syria in violation of European Union sanctions.

 

Two weeks later, Iran in retaliation seized a British-flagged tanker in the Strait of Hormuz leading into the Gulf.

 

Gibraltar released the Iranian vessel on Aug. 15 after receiving formal written assurances from Tehran that the ship would not discharge its 2.1 million barrels of oil in Syria.

 

However, shipping sources say the tanker is likely to try to conduct a ship-to-ship transfer with another vessel for part of its cargo after Iran said a sale had been concluded.

 

Washington has warned any state against assisting the ship, saying it would consider that support for a terrorist organisation, namely, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

 

The U.S. Treasury Department blacklisted the tanker on Friday.

 

(Reporting by Michael Perry; editing by Darren Schuettler)

 

reuters_logo.jpg

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-09-08
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


7 hours ago, pegman said:

Americans should learn to mind their own business.  Haven't they done enough destruction in the Middle East? 

 

5 hours ago, Somtamnication said:

It's called a FREE MARKET. The 'merkins should appreciate that instead of policing something that they are no longer qualified to police.

 

There are them EU sanctions against selling oil and such to Syria. Don't see much comments about how these are all wrong and such.

 

  • Sad 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MadMuhammad said:

Yep agreed. America should just pull out all their forces across the globe and let the world police itself....

 

Are USA forces "policing" the current situation mentioned in the OP? Yeah, well....

And as for the above - sure. There's also an added bonus for some, as the USA could be blamed for things falling apart in many places following such pull outs. Win win, eh?

 

  • Sad 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Srikcir said:

The "written assurances" were not legally binding to the Iran government.

About on par with Iran's written nuclear deal broken on a campaign promise by POTUS Trump.

 

Is the "not legally binding" part based on something concrete? And even if they weren't, what does it tell us about trusting Iranian assurances, then?

 

As for the second assertion, no. It's not quite "on par".

  • Like 1
  • Sad 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

What is worse, exporting weapons and nuclear technology to countries like Saudi Arabia or selling oil to Syria?

 

Other than in your contrived post, the equivalency doesn't stand, or is irrelevant. Both can be objected to. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Pedrogaz said:

I think all sanctions should be outlawed.

 

They were a decent tool when used sensibly (eg South Africa) but this nonsense where sanctions are used coercively to weaken a country economically prior to invading them is obscene.

 

Other than in your imagination, who's invading what country?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, tomazbodner said:

Something doesn't add up. Wasn't Syria actually flattened for refusing to sell its oil industry to the West? Or has the infrastructure been completely destroyed and they can no longer use their own oil? Sound like exporting pigeons to Venice...

 

Syria wasn't "flattened for refusing to sell it's oil industry to the West". Far as I'm aware, there wasn't such a wholesale bid anyway. Syria is not a major producer, and it's main importance, as far as the oil industry is concerned relates to the possibility of running oil pipes in its territory.

 

The infrastructure was not "completely destroyed", but the major oil fields are in contested area, currently not fully controlled by Assad's regime, but mostly the Kurds. The refinery this shipment is apparently headed to is operative.

 

Could be wrong but don't think Syria was self-sufficient on this front even before the civil war.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Syria wasn't "flattened for refusing to sell it's oil industry to the West". Far as I'm aware, there wasn't such a wholesale bid anyway. Syria is not a major producer, and it's main importance, as far as the oil industry is concerned relates to the possibility of running oil pipes in its territory.

 

The infrastructure was not "completely destroyed", but the major oil fields are in contested area, currently not fully controlled by Assad's regime, but mostly the Kurds. The refinery this shipment is apparently headed to is operative.

 

Could be wrong but don't think Syria was self-sufficient on this front even before the civil war.

I think u may be mistaken. I do many things and one of them is deal in oil and Syria has become a nightmare to some of my clients.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Sujo said:

I think u missed the part where he said weakening a country first. The US does have a history of that.

 

And I think you missed the part of there not being nearly enough USA troops and assets at hand to carry out any such imaginary invasion. By the way, did the same argument hold when Iran was under international sanctions? (guess that was what meant by "all").

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, pegman said:

Americans should learn to mind their own business.  Haven't they done enough destruction in the Middle East? 

 

The world doesn't work like that, does it? Perhaps Russia, China, the EU, etc etc should mind their own business. 

 

Only that would still entitle them to not buy or sell goods and services with countries they find offensive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

The world doesn't work like that, does it? Perhaps Russia, China, the EU, etc etc should mind their own business. 

 

Only that would still entitle them to not buy or sell goods and services with countries they find offensive. 

Yes, but not require of others to do the same.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Morch said:

 

 

There are them EU sanctions against selling oil and such to Syria. Don't see much comments about how these are all wrong and such.

 

Sanctioning oil imports that may actually help ordinary Syrians, while they simultaneously send arms and personnel to kill and harm Syrian civilians...amazing hypocrisy.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Is the "not legally binding" part based on something concrete? And even if they weren't, what does it tell us about trusting Iranian assurances, then?

 

As for the second assertion, no. It's not quite "on par".

Same as it says about trusting US Administration written assurances. None of this would probably be happening if Trump had not prevented Iran from selling its oil on the free market. Tit for tat. Well done Iran.

Edited by dexterm
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...