What is the US up to with regard to Iran?

[EnglishEdward]

A point I would make is that most of these supposedly British ships are:

(a) not built in Britain

(b) owned ultimately by foreigners

(c) captained by foreigners

(d) crewed by foreigners

(e) shipping foreign goods (oil)

(f) from foreign ports

(g) to foreign ports.

Not complaining about foreigners, my point being that these ships are not very British at all.

But one of the companies in a complicated chain is nominally British, the ship is listed
on a UK register, and a British flag is flown; and UK statisticians can pretend that such
shipping is part of the UK's GNP hence claiming fifth position in the GNP boasting stakes.

We the (UK) would be better off out of this game.

Let their owners register them with Panama and see if Panama will declare war on Iran.

Some owners are re-registering with France, who have a navy and lack a quarrel with Iran.

 

[brennan]

Just a reminder to everyone: before the US mandated appointment of Yukiya Amano to chair the IAEA in 2009, there were no sanctions because the IAEA never had any credible evidence that Iran had a nuclear weapons programme.

The last 8 years of negotiations and sanctions have simply been an aggressive and unnecessary expression of US foreign policy, and now under Trump we might be headed for armed confrontation.

In November 2010, British newspaper The Guardian reported on a U.S. diplomatic cable originating a year earlier in Vienna and supplied to the newspaper by WikiLeaks, detailing a meeting between Amano and an American ambassador. The author of the cable summarized a statement by Amano in which the latter offered that he "was solidly in the U.S. court on every key strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments to the handling of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program."[12] In March 2012, Amano was accused by several former senior IAEA officials of pro-western bias, over-reliance on unverified intelligence and of sidelining sceptics.[13]

 

[Estebonrober]

Just a reminder to everyone: before the US mandated appointment of Yukiya Amano to chair the IAEA in 2009, there were no sanctions because the IAEA never had any credible evidence that Iran had a nuclear weapons programme.

The last 8 years of negotiations and sanctions have simply been an aggressive and unnecessary expression of US foreign policy, and now under Trump we might be headed for armed confrontation.

I agree with this, but it doesn't change the appearance of an awfully successful instigation campaign by certain interests. . . I mean we are teetering on warfare at this point

 

[FriendlyFire]

A point I would make is that most of these supposedly British ships are:
(a) not built in Britain
.

The supertanker was invent by the Japanese, they had to make multiple advances from welding, engineering and ship construction
I believe some 90%+ of all supertankers were/are built in Japan

(d) crewed by foreigners

Welcome to the world of international shipping, low wages, spartan conditions, isolation and long hours. Iam sure tons of British people are eager to be tanker crews.

(f) from foreign ports (g) to foreign ports.

........ If the UK dosnt want to transport over "profitable" trade routes just because they are not landing goods onto the UK. Iam sure that other countries would be willing to take over that route for you.

We the (UK) would be better off out of this game. .

........ Well at least you didnt bash the EU this time.

 

[Hrothbern]

........ Well at least you didnt bash the EU this time.

Capturing that "British" oiltanker was the Iranian "tit" to the UK for the UKian "tat".
UK special forces did capture that Iranian oil tanker Grace in Gibraltar sea water two weeks earlier.
To justify that, the UK newsmedia do refer to EU sanctions on Syria.

But
AFAIK those written out EU sanctions only apply for EU countries trading with Syria.
NOT for other countries trading with Syria.

As usual the UK is using the EU for its own agenda.

 

[FriendlyFire]

As usual the UK is using the EU for its own agenda.

UK is carrying out Trumps unilateral Iran sanctions enforcement and everyone know it
I bet the UK is also up for another Middle Eastern adventure with there US pals again.

 

[AmazonQueen]

UK is carrying out Trumps unilateral Iran sanctions enforcement and everyone know it
I bet the UK is also up for another Middle Eastern adventure with there US pals again.

After Iraq support for Middle-Eastern or North African adventures has been low, even Boris probably realises getting involved in a war with Iran would be electoral suicide

 

[EnglishEdward]

As usual the UK is using the EU for its own agenda.

No, UK ministers have been manipulated by US war hawks such as John Bolton.

None of them are very bright.

UK is carrying out Trumps unilateral Iran sanctions enforcement and everyone know it

Quite so.

And it is all rather stupid, Donald Trump may not be around in 18 months time and is unlikely to
be able to get a trade deal through Congress. Something in the bible about not trusting princes.

I bet the UK is also up for another Middle Eastern adventure with their US pals again.

Not at all.

After Iraq support for Middle-Eastern or North African adventures has been low, even Boris probably realises getting involved in a war with Iran would be electoral suicide

I suspect that Boris Johnson does indeed realise that.

Although I doubt that Jeremy Hunt does. I suspect that he has not woken up to
the fact that the Iranians are a bit less passive than doctors and nurses.

As for Penelope Mary Mordaunt, she is a naval reservist, and should know better.

Just added: Link to GPS spoofing

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...ish-ship-is-seized/ar-AAECr1h?ocid=spartanntp

 

[Samson]

After Iraq support for Middle-Eastern or North African adventures has been low, even Boris probably realises getting involved in a war with Iran would be electoral suicide

I hope you are right, but I would not put it past him to sacrifice british soldiers lives (as well as middle east stability, UK international standing, Iranian lives, etc.) for the sake of a trade deal to make it look like he is "winning" brexit.

 

[Kyriakos]

A point I would make is that most of these supposedly British ships are:

(a) not built in Britain

(b) owned ultimately by foreigners

(c) captained by foreigners

(d) crewed by foreigners

(e) shipping foreign goods (oil)

(f) from foreign ports

(g) to foreign ports.

Not complaining about foreigners, my point being that these ships are not very British at all.

But one of the companies in a complicated chain is nominally British, the ship is listed
on a UK register, and a British flag is flown; and UK statisticians can pretend that such
shipping is part of the UK's GNP hence claiming fifth position in the GNP boasting stakes.

We the (UK) would be better off out of this game.

Let their owners register them with Panama and see if Panama will declare war on Iran.

Some owners are re-registering with France, who have a navy and lack a quarrel with Iran.

This is the standard and has to do with paying less taxes. Eg something like half (?) of greek ocean-going merchant ships fly a different flag (mostly of central american tax havens, but a considerable number fly the british flag too afaik).

 

[EnglishEdward]

This is the standard and has to do with paying less taxes. Eg something like half (?) of greek ocean-going merchant ships fly a different flag (mostly of central american tax havens, but a considerable number fly the british flag too afaik).

Found it, yet more arrogant nonsense.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-pledges-to-double-uk-fleet-flying-under-the-red-duster

Published 11 September 2017

I really cannot see the point, or how it benefits the 60 million Brits.

 

[Kyriakos]

Found it, yet more arrogant nonsense.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-pledges-to-double-uk-fleet-flying-under-the-red-duster

Published 11 September 2017

I really cannot see the point, or how it benefits the 60 million Brits.

Indeed. There is no higher standard to flying the british flag. It is all about tax breaks for major ship-owners. Afaik a few of the greek ones even have their HQ in London.
It would be interesting to know how many of the ships flying the british flag are actually british-owned.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Well according to wiki, the International Maritime Organisation is head quartered in London.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Maritime_Organization

at the moment.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Found it, yet more arrogant nonsense.

Is this not the Brexit that you voted for ?
What exactly did you envision would happen ?

 

[r16]

when evil U-boots show up and start sinking ships it will help them Brits survive until America introduces Liberty II Ship and launches 30 million tons of them .

 

[AmazonQueen]

UK poodle status confirmed

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...il-tankers-in-gulf/ar-AAFn9Nm?ocid=spartanntp

 

[r16]

how very wrong of you to say that . America is still a British "colony" when it comes to this long term strategies stuff .

 

[AmazonQueen]

Hopeful sign

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/worl...-bid-to-seize-ship/ar-AAFQHdx?ocid=spartanntp

 

[EnglishEdward]

Yes, methinks.

If the tanker wasn't going to Syria, then where was it going? The failure to provide an alternative destination makes me think that it was going to Syria.
Now oil tankers are not like submarines, they can not be easily hidden. One might assume that the captain has worked out, or someone has kindly told him;
that the USA will track him, and that if he goes too near Syria, he might collide with one of the Donald's bombs, missiles or torpedo, then being difficult to Duck..

 

[Hrothbern]

What I see is a court nullifying the Gibraltar action, the UK SAS action, and the political desires of some US hawks.
Rule of Law vs politics abuse.