Britain's navy to escort UK-flagged ships through Strait of Hormuz

 

FILE PHOTO: Royal Navy vessel HMS Montrose at sea during Baltic Operations in this photo taken June 15, 2014. Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Adam C. Stapleton/U.S. Navy/Handout via REUTERS

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's navy will accompany UK-flagged ships through the Strait of Hormuz to provide protection after the U.S. killing of Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani inflamed tensions in the region.

 

Britain's defence minister, Ben Wallace, ordered the HMS Montrose and HMS Defender to prepare to return to escort duties in the major oil shipping route as Prime Minister Boris Johnson came in for criticism for his silence over the killing.

 

Media reports have said Johnson is on holiday in the Caribbean.

 

"The government will take all necessary steps to protect our ships and citizens at this time," Wallace said in a statement.

 

Britain was forced to defend its ships through the world's most important shipping route last year after Iranian commandos seized a British-flagged tanker in the Strait.

 

British forces had previously captured an Iranian oil tanker near Gibraltar that was accused of violating sanctions on Syria. The killing of Soleimani has raised fears that tankers could be targeted again.

 

Wallace said he had spoken to his U.S. counterpart, Defense Secretary Mark Esper, and urged restraint on all sides.

 

"Under international law, the United States is entitled to defend itself against those posing an imminent threat to their citizens," he added.

 

Jeremy Corbyn, the outgoing leader of the opposition Labour Party, said he had written to the British prime minister to ask what was being done to protect UK nationals and others in the region.

 

"Boris Johnson should have immediately cut short his holiday to deal with an issue that could have grave consequences for the UK and the world," he said in a statement.

 

(Reporting by Kate Holton; Editing by Kevin Liffey and Paul Simao)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-01-05

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

Instead of the USA  protecting its oil interests and removed all Americans from the middle east there wouldn't be a constant war zone - let the arabs get on with it, is my opinion. 

 

Gung-Ho Trump will be re-elected next year, but after his term ends the Democrats will take over and bring about a sea change in how to protect the global environment. Something to look forward to. 

 

In the meantime, the UK will bring about a degree of sanity by low-key protection.

Edited January 5, 20206 yr by stephenterry
addition to text.

39 minutes ago, rooster59 said:

"The government will take all necessary steps to protect our ships and citizens at this time," Wallace said in a statement.

Didn't do too well with the Stena Impero 

28 minutes ago, Salerno said:

Didn't do too well with the Stena Impero 

Years ago I was on a drilling rig, the Scan Bay, that came under attack from Iranian gun boats we put out a mayday to the British and American forces who were very close, we are still waiting for a response, maybe they were too busy posing for BBC and CNN in their pretty white uniforms, we were rescued by civilian helicopters, my advice is make your own arrangements do not depend on government forces.

Downing Street livid with Donald for no warning, endangering 400 British troops.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10667726/trump-iran-news-qasem-soleiman/

1 minute ago, car720 said:

Bad for 17-20 year olds. (cannon fodder).

It would take their minds off climate change 

1 minute ago, Salerno said:

It would take their minds off climate change 

 

They could always re-christen one of the battleships The SS Greta Thunberg.

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

They could always re-christen one of the battleships The SS Greta Thunberg.

 

 

..

Stop fingering Greta

..

Edited January 5, 20206 yr by Slaps

1 hour ago, bannork said:

Downing Street livid with Donald for no warning, endangering 400 British troops.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10667726/trump-iran-news-qasem-soleiman/

he didn't even let his own people know lol, 

12 minutes ago, Slaps said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

Stop fingering Greta

..

or at least get her drunk first..

Although I don't think UK ships will be a target this is a sensible precaution IMO.

7 hours ago, stephenterry said:

let the arabs get on with it, is my opinion. 

Iranians are not Arabs.

The drone attack took place on Friday, Boris Johnson returns from his holiday today or tomorrow. I really don't see what purpose would have been served in him returning early. 

As I understand the two steps the UK have taken are two withdraw the military training teams in Iraq to more secure locations and to prepare to escort merchant ships through the Straits of Hormuz. Both would have already been amongst the contingency plans, prepared, rehearsed and ready to go. The only involvement of the Prime Minister (if any) would have been to receive a briefing over a secure comms link, and issuing the order "OK, go ahead." 

 

Or do those demanding that he return expect him to busy himself issuing route cards for the move of the troops, and signalling the captains of the warships to tell them to be careful of any sandbanks?

6 hours ago, car720 said:

everyone is itching for a world war. 

Good for employment (military) and for population control.

Bad for 17-20 year olds. (cannon fodder).

nothing like a good short war, then home in time for tea, cucumber sandwiches and medals. Also a great way to thin out the world's population, which the scientists tell us is getting unsustainable. So long as it stays conventional, also good for climate change.  so all good really. 

7 hours ago, stephenterry said:

Instead of the USA  protecting its oil interests low-key protection......

Please explain, as my understanding is that the USA is  energy self sufficient and exports oil. There are about 22 oil companies operating in Iraq. with the exception of minor player Exxon, all are non American with China,  Russia,  Egyp, Turkey, Japan, Korea, and other arab countries the dominant entities. BTW, Exxon is nominally American now.

 

7 hours ago, bannork said:

Downing Street livid with Donald for no warning, endangering 400 British troops.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10667726/trump-iran-news-qasem-soleiman/

LOL, seriously? The incident was done as an opportunistic  event. These events are never signalled ahead of time. They can't be, because these guys travel under tight security, with a human shield entourage, including their wives and kids. The intent is that if they are taken out, the non combatant casualties causes upset. The guy was on the hit list for years, so  no one  should be surprised he was taken out. 

I have an interest in this because this guy advocated  hijackings and civilian targeting.

29 minutes ago, JAG said:

The drone attack took place on Friday, Boris Johnson returns from his holiday today or tomorrow. I really don't see what purpose would have been served in him returning early. 

As I understand the two steps the UK have taken are two withdraw the military training teams in Iraq to more secure locations and to prepare to escort merchant ships through the Straits of Hormuz. Both would have already been amongst the contingency plans, prepared, rehearsed and ready to go. The only involvement of the Prime Minister (if any) would have been to receive a briefing over a secure comms link, and issuing the order "OK, go ahead." 

 

Or do those demanding that he return expect him to busy himself issuing route cards for the move of the troops, and signalling the captains of the warships to tell them to be careful of any sandbanks?

It seems it's the failure to inform the UK government in advance, thus leaving the 400 British troops unprepared if the Iranian militia or Iraquis vented their anger on them, that is the sore point.

1 hour ago, bannork said:

It seems it's the failure to inform the UK government in advance, thus leaving the 400 British troops unprepared if the Iranian militia or Iraquis vented their anger on them, that is the sore point.

Yes, I am sure that it is a very sore point.

 

However, these troops would have been in probably not less than Company strength (about 100 men) and would already have enough combat supplies (ammunition, rations, water, fuel and radio batteries) to hold out for a considerable time.

 

Still, not something to relish! But when the US gets into "yeee ha" mode, particularly with their present political leadership, one that cannot be entirely unexpected, and would have been planned for.

Edited January 5, 20206 yr by JAG

9 hours ago, rayluttman said:

Years ago I was on a drilling rig, the Scan Bay, that came under attack from Iranian gun boats we put out a mayday to the British and American forces who were very close, we are still waiting for a response, maybe they were too busy posing for BBC and CNN in their pretty white uniforms, we were rescued by civilian helicopters, my advice is make your own arrangements do not depend on government forces.

Interesting article on that Iran attack,with a mention of impact on The Scan Bay rig.   

 

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/navy’s-largest-sea-battle-world-war-ii-was-iran-82501 

3 hours ago, JAG said:

The drone attack took place on Friday, Boris Johnson returns from his holiday today or tomorrow. I really don't see what purpose would have been served in him returning early. 

As I understand the two steps the UK have taken are two withdraw the military training teams in Iraq to more secure locations and to prepare to escort merchant ships through the Straits of Hormuz. Both would have already been amongst the contingency plans, prepared, rehearsed and ready to go. The only involvement of the Prime Minister (if any) would have been to receive a briefing over a secure comms link, and issuing the order "OK, go ahead." 

 

Or do those demanding that he return expect him to busy himself issuing route cards for the move of the troops, and signalling the captains of the warships to tell them to be careful of any sandbanks?

Imagine for a moment that Corbyn was the PM not returning from holiday in response to these circumstances.

 

Whatever the right wing press response to such a turn of events might be, the nation might at least expect him

not to follow Trump like some pitiful lapdog.

Edited January 5, 20206 yr by Chomper Higgot

2 hours ago, JAG said:

Yes, I am sure that it is a very sore point.

 

However, these troops would have been in probably not less than Company strength (about 100 men) and would already have enough combat supplies (ammunition, rations, water, fuel and radio batteries) to hold out for a considerable time.

 

Still, not something to relish! But when the US gets into "yeee ha" mode, particularly with their present political leadership, one that cannot be entirely unexpected, and would have been planned for.

As a British Intelligence source is reported to have said, ‘the point of having allies is to be able to surprise your enemies, not spring surprises on your allies’.

Edited January 5, 20206 yr by Chomper Higgot

41 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Imagine for a moment that Corbyn was the PM not returning from holiday in response to these circumstances.

 

Whatever the right wing press response to such a turn of events might be, the nation might at least expect him

not to follow Trump like some pitiful lapdog.

The SAS had the chance to take him out in 2007. Corbyns party stopped them.

Edited January 5, 20206 yr by allen303

6 hours ago, gaikhao said:

Please explain, as my understanding is that the USA is  energy self sufficient and exports oil. There are about 22 oil companies operating in Iraq. with the exception of minor player Exxon, all are non American with China,  Russia,  Egyp, Turkey, Japan, Korea, and other arab countries the dominant entities. BTW, Exxon is nominally American now.

 

LOL, seriously? The incident was done as an opportunistic  event. These events are never signalled ahead of time. They can't be, because these guys travel under tight security, with a human shield entourage, including their wives and kids. The intent is that if they are taken out, the non combatant casualties causes upset. The guy was on the hit list for years, so  no one  should be surprised he was taken out. 

I have an interest in this because this guy advocated  hijackings and civilian targeting.

Actually, it's not in America's interests to have the price of oil skyrocket. While that might benefit one small sliver of the American economy, not so good for the rest of it.

 

As has been extensively reported, Soleimani could have been taken several out years ago. But some people had the crazy idea that there might be repercussions. That said, I doubt that even if they had decided to take him out, they wouldn't have been so clueless as to do it in Iraq. Or kill a high level Iraqi military official as well.

7 hours ago, bannork said:

It seems it's the failure to inform the UK government in advance, thus leaving the 400 British troops unprepared if the Iranian militia or Iraquis vented their anger on them, that is the sore point.

 

If you are stationed in a war zone you are always ready without exceptions. Failure to be ready for any reason is nobody else's fault. 

5 hours ago, allen303 said:

The SAS had the chance to take him out in 2007. Corbyns party stopped them.

It may have been a wise decision at that time....

3 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

If you are stationed in a war zone you are always ready without exceptions. Failure to be ready for any reason is nobody else's fault. 

 

Quoted myself to add one reason for this is sometimes your allies won't be able to tell you things. In war things come up unexpected.

Some posts and replies have been removed:

 

Quote

 I am assuming you are talking about this. GOOGLE it, takes about 60 seconds to find. 

 

If you are unwilling or unable to post a link to support your claims, do not suggest the above to other members.

 

 

Edit:  A troll post has been reported and removed. 

Edited January 6, 20206 yr by metisdead

16 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Iranians are not Arabs.

But Saudi Arabia is - and is an enemy of Iran. Not that I'd condone conflict between the two, but the US involvement in their regional matters is not the most appropriate path, IMO.

15 hours ago, gaikhao said:

Please explain, as my understanding is that the USA is  energy self sufficient and exports oil. There are about 22 oil companies operating in Iraq. with the exception of minor player Exxon, all are non American with China,  Russia,  Egyp, Turkey, Japan, Korea, and other arab countries the dominant entities. BTW, Exxon is nominally American now.

 

 

Precisely. No need for the USA to become involved, is there?

3 hours ago, metisdead said:

Some posts and replies have been removed:

 

 

If you are unwilling or unable to post a link to support your claims, do not suggest the above to other members.

 

 

Edit:  A troll post has been reported and removed. 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1223827/Iran-news-Iranian-Qasem-Soleimani-assassination-David-Milibandm-Donald-Trump

there how is that, if that link don't work their are several more.

Edited January 6, 20206 yr by allen303

12 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

As a British Intelligence source is reported to have said, ‘the point of having allies is to be able to surprise your enemies, not spring surprises on your allies’.

Dear UK - We may, or may not, blow up terrorists tomorrow. Consider yourself updated! Signed, Former colony P.S. Good luck with your own attempt at Independence from foreign rule, we're pulling for ya!

 

PS: do you have a link for that intelligence source?

Edited January 6, 20206 yr by allen303