Gulf of Oman incidents
Discussion
Second ship
https://www.vesselfinder.com/?imo=9452672
Was doing 15kt heading 270 ish and had been for some time then about 4pm today UTC it slowed to 3kt and turned to 360 and then slowly sailed north about 30 miles towards Iranian coast.
Oh dear.
https://www.vesselfinder.com/?imo=9452672
Was doing 15kt heading 270 ish and had been for some time then about 4pm today UTC it slowed to 3kt and turned to 360 and then slowly sailed north about 30 miles towards Iranian coast.
Oh dear.
The nuclear deal may not have been perfect but it was working.
Under the previous status quo, the sanctions, Iran went from 150 centrifuges to just under 20000 in a little over a decade. Going back to sanctions in an attempt to curb their nuclear ambitions won't work - it will have the opposite effect.
The US should bite Iran's hand off at this latest offer....
"Iran has offered a deal with the US in which it would formally and permanently accept enhanced inspections of its nuclear programme, in return for the permanent lifting of US sanctions.
The offer was made by the Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, on a visit to New York. But it is unlikely to be warmly received by the Trump administration, which is currently demanding Iran make a range of sweeping concessions, including cessation of uranium enrichment and support for proxies and allies in the region."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/18/iran...
But of course they won't because when it comes to Iran Trump has made a w
e of the United States to Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Israel.
Under the previous status quo, the sanctions, Iran went from 150 centrifuges to just under 20000 in a little over a decade. Going back to sanctions in an attempt to curb their nuclear ambitions won't work - it will have the opposite effect.
The US should bite Iran's hand off at this latest offer....
"Iran has offered a deal with the US in which it would formally and permanently accept enhanced inspections of its nuclear programme, in return for the permanent lifting of US sanctions.
The offer was made by the Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, on a visit to New York. But it is unlikely to be warmly received by the Trump administration, which is currently demanding Iran make a range of sweeping concessions, including cessation of uranium enrichment and support for proxies and allies in the region."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/18/iran...
But of course they won't because when it comes to Iran Trump has made a w
e of the United States to Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Israel. Condi said:
But they're EU sanctions. The oil wasn't from the EU, the ship wasn't from the EU, and the destination wasn't in the EU.
Moreover I don't know which water the tanker was picked up in, but given how small the British waters are around Gibraltar its hard to believe the vessel was picked up there. If it was in Spanish waters, why didn't the Spanish stop it? Why did we have to do it? If it was in International waters then we have no more right to stop the vessel than the Iranians have to stop ours.
Moreover I don't know which water the tanker was picked up in, but given how small the British waters are around Gibraltar its hard to believe the vessel was picked up there. If it was in Spanish waters, why didn't the Spanish stop it? Why did we have to do it? If it was in International waters then we have no more right to stop the vessel than the Iranians have to stop ours.
I struggle to see how our confiscation of their tanker wasn't piracy. Iran's action is tit-for-tat.What on Earth do we think we are doing our there?
grumbledoak said:
Condi said:
But they're EU sanctions. The oil wasn't from the EU, the ship wasn't from the EU, and the destination wasn't in the EU.
Moreover I don't know which water the tanker was picked up in, but given how small the British waters are around Gibraltar its hard to believe the vessel was picked up there. If it was in Spanish waters, why didn't the Spanish stop it? Why did we have to do it? If it was in International waters then we have no more right to stop the vessel than the Iranians have to stop ours.
Moreover I don't know which water the tanker was picked up in, but given how small the British waters are around Gibraltar its hard to believe the vessel was picked up there. If it was in Spanish waters, why didn't the Spanish stop it? Why did we have to do it? If it was in International waters then we have no more right to stop the vessel than the Iranians have to stop ours.
I struggle to see how our confiscation of their tanker wasn't piracy. Iran's action is tit-for-tat.What on Earth do we think we are doing our there?
Countdown said:
Burwood said:
But then again, we don’t have 5 eyes access etc.
How many eyes did we have when we said Iraq had WMD?grumbledoak said:
Burwood said:
But then again, we don’t have 5 eyes access etc.
I am not going to be easily convinced that our government has super secret squirrel knowledge that makes this all look rational. It just looks like we are acting on behalf of the US and Israel's war on Syria.
Chimune said:
Condi said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
But they're EU sanctions. The oil wasn't from the EU, the ship wasn't from the EU, and the destination wasn't in the EU. Moreover I don't know which water the tanker was picked up in, but given how small the British waters are around Gibraltar its hard to believe the vessel was picked up there. If it was in Spanish waters, why didn't the Spanish stop it? Why did we have to do it? If it was in International waters then we have no more right to stop the vessel than the Iranians have to stop ours.
Burwood said:
I don’t have a problem with that scenario either to be fair.
No? No independent thought or sovereignty, especially considering who is in the White House? Where do we draw the line, how far into a mess do we get before we either pull out. or get so far in we can't get out?
If this was part of a larger program of 'pressure' (if you want to call it that), internationally sanctioned by the UN, and involving multiple partners, then I have no problems either. But it appears we are simply doing the bidding of the US, and tbh I'm very disappointed in our leadership for not doing more to stand up to the US administration.
Theresa May cannot, on the one hand, claim to still support the Iran nuclear agreement (as she is doing), while simultaneously impounding Iranian tankers on the other.
Burwood said:
I don’t have a problem with that scenario either to be fair.
Why? Syria has not threatened us. As I understand it, and paraphrasing a little, currently the US via it's various head choppy "moderate rebels" are occupying Syria's oil fields and best agricultural land, while enforcing sanctions that only ever harm civilians, flogging Syrian oil to Israel on the cheap, and awarding themselves licenses to steal more Syrian oil in the occupied Golan.
Our own bit of piracy on the high seas does appear to be "getting into the spirit of it" but I don't see anything here that I would support.
Burwood said:
I don’t have a problem with that scenario either to be fair.
I thought we wanted to avoid being a vassal state...The guy with the hair looked over there
And told us to throw a stone
Without asking why we let our stone fly
In the hope that he gives us a bone.
But now we're unclear how we got here
I hope we don't end up alone.
Cos when the guy with the hair decides what is fair
No one is left with a home.
Edited by biggbn on Friday 19th July 21:55
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff