Iran, the Red Sea, and the West (tm).

[Kaitzilla]

Iran has seized a tanker with Iraqi crude destined for Turkey in retaliation for the confiscation last year of the same vessel and its oil by the United States

“The Navy of the Islamic Republic of Iran seized an American oil tanker in the waters of the Gulf of Oman in accordance with a court order,” the state-run IRNA news agency said.

“After the theft of Iranian oil by the United States last year, St Nikolas tanker was seized by Iran’s Navy”, the navy said, as cited by the Iranian news agency Fars.

Ambrey said the recently renamed tanker was previously prosecuted and fined for carrying sanctioned Iranian oil, which was confiscated by US authorities. The yearlong dispute ended with the US Department of Justice seizing one million barrels of Iranian crude.

United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO), which is linked to the British military and provides warnings to sailors in the Middle East, said the incident began in waters between Oman and Iran, and it had received a report from the ship’s security manager of hearing “unknown voices over the phone” alongside the ship’s captain.

Ambrey said that the men covered surveillance cameras as they boarded the vessel. As the tanker appeared to veer towards Bandar-e-Jask, its tracker was turned off, it added.

The vessel was manned by a crew of 19, including 18 Filipino nationals and one Greek national, the operator said, adding that Turkish oil refiner Tupras chartered it.

What did the USA think would happen?

On the Legality and Policy Ramifications of High Seas Seizures of Foreign Merchant Vessels for Violating U.S. Sanctions

ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON LAWFARE Despite robust U.S. sanctions, Tehran and Caracas are undertaking a significant shipping operation to provide desperately needed cash to Iran and weapons and fuel to Venezuela. The Iranian frigate IRIS Sahand and converted oil tanker IRINS Makran, the latter...

studentbriefs.law.gwu.edu

While high-profile shipping seizures are not without precedent, U.S. sanctions enforcement is straining traditionally accepted state behavior in the maritime to such an extent that the United States is very likely operating at the limit of its sovereign authority.

We just take stuff on the seas if we don't like 2 countries trading with each other?

No Buyers Found For The Iranian Crude Oil Cargo Stuck Off US Coast

Iranian crude oil stuck off Texas coast for 8 weeks due to fear of being shunned by customers if unloaded.

www.marineinsight.com

A cargo of sanctioned crude oil from Iran that we confiscated has reportedly sat off the Texas coast for eight weeks now, unable to unload since commercial agents fear a vessel that takes it will be shunned by customers. These people are familiar with the matter and informed.

Suez Rajan, a tanker flying the flag of Marshall Islands, has been anchored off Galveston, approximately 50 miles outside Houston, since 30 May, with agents of ships refusing to accept it. The Suezmax needs a lightering agent for transferring the crude to smaller vessels, as its weight and size restrict it from entering the port directly.

And now almost 1 year later:

Iran seizes oil tanker with links to US in Gulf of Oman

Taking of vessel relates to dispute over sanctioned oil but will worsen tensions over marine navigation in Middle East

www.theguardian.com

The tanker, previously called the Suez Rajan, was renamed after a long-running court case led to 980,000 tonnes of Iranian oil being unloaded from the ship in Texas last September. A US district court found that the owners of the ship had allowed sanctioned Iranian oil to be loaded on to the Suez Rajan, and the ship was eventually taken to Houston, where the contents were unloaded.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

Bombin' Joe Biden. eh? EH?

or maybe he's "wagging the dog" over his little baby's issues.

 

[Kaitzilla]

US, British militaries launch massive retaliatory strike against Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen

Wow.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

western civilization: killing pirates since the Roman days.

Hostis humani generis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Kyriakos]

It's impressive how far the US is willing to go for Israel.
Considering Israel "didn't take part in the Normandy landing" either

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

western civilization: killing pirates since the Roman days.

Hostis humani generis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Alternatively, western civilization: committing genocide since the Roman days

Siege of Carthage (Third Punic War) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[r16]

the attacks should have happened months ago , with all the babbling that goes about the freedom of the seas and so on . And talking of concessions , how much Bidon offered to Iran so that they could capture a tanker in an action that's like against Turkish interests and so on ? Uhmm , should certainly fight Iran or what ?

 

[Kyriakos]

It only is positive if it is one more step towards the resurrection of the evil but non-barbarous Byzantine Empire.

Well, all those escalations are steps towards WW3 anyway. Which is why US' unlimited support of Israel does impress.

 

[r16]

where , in the astreoid belt ? Musk is sending some New Turkey guy into orbit this week or so ; where are the tickets for the Greeks ?

 

[Kyriakos]

Musk is a Byznessman.

 

[r16]

called it 10 days ago

tsk , tsk ... People , do not pick on your saviour . Who is going to take you to Mars ? ı clearly will not ...

View attachment 681367

 

[Gorbles]

western civilization: killing pirates since the Roman days.

Hostis humani generis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Here, have some recent fun history on Yemen, and the UK's involvement (as a part of the West) in it

‘The Saudis couldn’t do it without us’: the UK’s true role in Yemen’s deadly war

The long read: Britain does not merely supply the bombs that fall on Yemen – it provides the personnel and expertise that keep the war going. But is the government breaking the law?

www.theguardian.com

(the article is from 2019, but provides important and relevant backstory to our current decision to bomb Yemen and kill people over an economic blockade)

 

[r16]

and even without reading the thing ı will be tempted to say it is not even that because his excellencies the idiot who will become the next Saudi king Crownprince Mega BS thought it would look good on his CV that he should win a war or something . Iranian threat , surrounding the Saudis ? Happens because Uncle Sam decided he would leave Iraq so that Gulf Arabs could be used more profitably . Qatar gaining too much "prestige" , hence Mega BS ...

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

Alternatively, western civilization: committing genocide since the Roman days

Siege of Carthage (Third Punic War) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

sure that could have happened here in this US/UK/etc. strike; I guess we'll know once more details emerge
I was only trying to cite a very old legal concept for why I think what happened, happened

Here, have some recent fun history on Yemen, and the UK's involvement (as a part of the West) in it

‘The Saudis couldn’t do it without us’: the UK’s true role in Yemen’s deadly war

The long read: Britain does not merely supply the bombs that fall on Yemen – it provides the personnel and expertise that keep the war going. But is the government breaking the law?

www.theguardian.com

(the article is from 2019, but provides important and relevant backstory to our current decision to bomb Yemen and kill people over an economic blockade)

I see.
I guess it's understandable if the Houthis want to take revenge (?) on those deemed responsible for ruining their country in a proxy war, if that's what's going on here; I just think they're not playing on a field very suitable to them at the moment. Now in a battle with global ramifications that I'm guessing they probably didn't foresee.
but like I said, maybe they really thought shooting at people is just a decent scare tactic.
Although I did notice this particular item, and it made me wonder if the same applies to Iran in relation to the ships that the Houthis fire upon:

The British government is keen to stress that it has no role in targeting, and insists that only Saudi Arabia chooses what to hit in Yemen. But there is no disputing the fact that British contractors enable Saudi Arabia to hit its targets – and that Britain is well aware of the nature of these targets.

*as an aside*
I also got a chuckle out of this but maybe because it's just a cultural difference of attitudes:
The UK government’s argument that it does not pick the targets in Yemen resembles nothing so much as the logic of the American gun lobby, with its infamous claim that it’s not guns that kill people, but the people who use them.
...and? So? What does the author think of this? I mean if a lobby or some manufacturer was an accomplice in the plotting of a crime, by someone who was furnished one of their products, I could see the point, but here I don't. Perhaps the author wasn't aware of a subtle difference between a) a retail purchase and b) a one-to-one arms deal.

 

[Gorbles]

I also got a chuckle out of this but maybe because it's just a cultural difference of attitudes:
The UK government’s argument that it does not pick the targets in Yemen resembles nothing so much as the logic of the American gun lobby, with its infamous claim that it’s not guns that kill people, but the people who use them.
...and? So? What does the author think of this? I mean if a lobby or some manufacturer was an accomplice in the plotting of a crime by someone was furnished one of their products I could see the point, but here I don't. Perhaps the author wasn't aware of a subtle difference between a) a retail purchase and b) a one-to-one arms deal.

I'd suggest your position on guns in the US is probably colouring your interpretation of the point.

 

[banzay13]

Here, have some recent fun history on Yemen, and the UK's involvement (as a part of the West) in it

‘The Saudis couldn’t do it without us’: the UK’s true role in Yemen’s deadly war

The long read: Britain does not merely supply the bombs that fall on Yemen – it provides the personnel and expertise that keep the war going. But is the government breaking the law?

www.theguardian.com

(the article is from 2019, but provides important and relevant backstory to our current decision to bomb Yemen and kill people over an economic blockade)

From Soviet newspaper. 20 July 1928
Great Britain bombing Yemen with bombers

 

[gay_Aleks]

Well, I hope that the humanitarians of Off-Topic will prove how bombing and starving the poop out of Yemen (done since at least 2014 by Saudi proxies) will result in: A) Safer "commerce" (which is evidently the abiding concern of both Joseph Robinette Biden Sr. and our eminent OT posters) and B) Peace in Yemen. History, for the most part, does not bear out on counterinsurgency campaigns that mostly relied on "kill as many people as humanely possible", whether this is in Eastern Europe or in North Africa.

But, you know, maybe, maybe just this once, it'll work for you. After all, the definition of sanity is doing a tried and tested method over and over, as you would know.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

well what would've worked even less is for the Houthis to somehow intimidate the warships into backing down and their respective nations instead putting some sort of pressure onto Israel to concede to Palestinian demands and then hopefully get another concession back from the Houthis to leave commercial shipping alone, as I'm sure many had desperately wished for...But that was a real long shot...

 

[gay_Aleks]

I'm certain that you've definitely wished for that.

 

[r16]

the cost of sending a 40 feet container from some unknown point A to some unknown point B increases from 1500 dollars to 6000 if the cargo ship goes around the Cape .