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

 

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)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-09-08

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

The written assurances missed out the it will and always was that's all????

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

26 minutes ago, sammieuk1 said:

The written assurances missed out the it will and always was that's all????

Could we have this in English please?

An off topic trolling post about North Korea has been removed.

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

2 hours ago, neeray said:

Could we have this in English please?

It confused me to when I read it but was enough when read slowly to release the ship said the author ????

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

3 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

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

I like quiz's but this one is to hard as there is no Brexit in the question????

3 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.

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

Next up for your entertainment....  Iranian naval vessels to escort its shipping thru unsafe waters to prevent hostile acts against them ????

5 hours ago, sammieuk1 said:

The written assurances missed out the it will and always was that's all????

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.

Does this mean Trump will be on Tv with his crayons and charts again?

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.

 

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?

 

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".

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. 

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.

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?

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...

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.

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

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

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

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.

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").

31 minutes ago, Sujo said:

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.

 

Yes, Syria was a modest exporter previously.

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. 

5 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".

 

The Iranian regime has been caught lying consistently. Have they ever provided any proof of the collision between a fishing vessel and the tanker they seized? Or do they ever provide proof, real proof, against people they seize in Iran and claim to be spies?

 

Sadly, they've shown themselves to be completely untrustworthy and have a history of funding terrorism and openly calling for the complete destruction of Israel.

 

Who in their right mind is going to trust anything they say now? Macron?

Edited September 8, 20196 yr by Baerboxer

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.

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.

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 September 8, 20196 yr by dexterm