Topic: Iran Attempts to Stop British Commercial Ship (Read 548 times)

Iran is a very weird country to me, so many unneeded laws forcing people to do what they dont want to, taking away their freedom

its like hate speech, every country has the right to live. and there is no permit to enter anyone in any of country

The nature of human behavior both by intent and the pursuit of advantage is to create "damned if you do damned if you don't" situations.

It's not misleading to say Obama gave them that cash, that's exactly what he did. I would have given it to the American men and women they held hostage.

I'm not concerned with what other countries do or don't do on this issue, as the entire matter revolved around illegal making of a treaty by Obama. FYI, it may not have been illegal to give them the frozen assets back. Offhand I would guess a US President could do that without consulting the other branches.

However, look at where we are now.
(A) they got their damn money back
(B) they are funding hundreds of cases of international terrorism each year
(C) they are not following the rules of the agreement with the other nations
(D) The US has pulled out of a bad deal but with a statement that we're open to a better deal.
(E) Iran is acting like an angry idiot child.

I don't have any problem with the US handling of this situation. I can see how internationally we might be criticized for it, but trust me on this; the international community does not want US Potus to be able to do whatever he wants. They might want Obama's actions on this issue, but they know they won't want to deal with any random US Potus having such an ability.

One dimension of this problem is that the international community fully expected Hillary to win, and she would have followed this and other illegal actions of Obama faithfully as well as many other batshit crazy things.

The plan for greater israel continues.

I agree the mullahs bare some responsibility, but it's misleading to say Obama gave them this cash, they were Iranian assets which were frozen. You have brought to conversation an interesting pont about the passing of the deal in Iran. But since all other countries involved in the deal are still committed to it, what can be done. Would you accept European countries maintaining the Iran Deal and ignoring any sanctions put in place by the USA on Iran? They have no reason not to stick with it, since they are perfectly satisfied with it and should not have to bow down to America every time a political decision is made, even if they are close allies (in my opinion of course).

But those of us in the US who were not happy with the deal, made, yes; but made against our law, constitution and tradition, did not number just a few. So perhaps your statement could be changed as to the "countries unhappy with it" to include the USA.

As for our actions "hurting the ordinary citizens of Iran" I guess the mullahs over there need to break out that 150B cash their friend Obama gave them, and hand it out.

Yes, and the North Korean government knows this is the case. If they are to use a nuke on anyone in the world -- they're going to be decimated beyond belief. We're not just going to sit around and let them nuke the world just to 'keep the peace' at that point -- as they've now opened pandoras box.

The current North Korean government is the best thing that they currently have other their without causing a humanitarian crisis of people fleeing everywhere. If the US knew there was a 'better' government to ensure this wasn't the case Kim Jong Un wouldn't be in power right now.

Agree with everything you've said about the Iran agreement.

The only reaction of North Korea bombing Seoul with a Nuke is war, and China would be unlikely to support NK if they did this. The same is true if chemical weapons were used. Once a North Korean bomb hits South Korea, there is no possibility of deescalating the situation.

With the Iran situation, War with Iran is one option, however this is not the only option as countries can decide to remove sanctions against Iran to get Iran to stop disrupting trade. Iran is engaging in behavior that can provoke war, but the reaction to which does not have to be war.

The 'Iran Agreement' did nothing to stop Iran from getting Nukes as the agreement had no real "teeth" nor did it allow for inspectors to independently confirm compliance. It also gave the Iran government a lot of money to continue both financing terrorism and their Nuclear weapons program.

 

You would still expect that there is a way to debate the policy of a President instead of calling him this name and that name. Disregarding what he does and says there is still a way to talk about him in a fair way. I don't see the reason that a sitting admin / moderator of this forum has to drop names whenever you're arguing. For fucks sake act like an adult.

That was the not the best deal on the table in the least, as Iran was still able to enrich uranium (just under a set number), and pratically everything under this agreement was going to sunset in 10 years anyway.

This plan was shit, and it was just kicking the can 10 years down the line when Iran was going to be able to do this all over again.

We fix the problem now, and we don't have this issue anymore.

You have a point, in that Obama did not and thank you for bringing this to my attention. But to say it was never a deal is misleading, it was agreed between the P5+1 countries and Iran, not just America, and all these countries were optimistic about the deal. In fact, literally the only country unhappy with it was Israel. Negotiated deals shouldn't be broken on a whim. On top of that, even more sanctions were put on iran for little legitimate reason, sanctions which have hurt ordinary civilians.

We've got a new table now, so we can get a new fucking deal.

Or no deal.

I don't need to be diplomatic I'm not negotiating with your stupid cunt of a president.  Grow a set, Trump calls everyone and their brother names yet I am supposed to be diplomatic, ya typical right winger wants it both fucking ways...


Right wing talking point drivel...

It was the best fucking deal on the table, you do know Iran had enough enriched Uranium to make approx 8-10 NUCLEAR BOMBS and gave it all up when the deal was signed right?  That means we GOT NUKES out of the hands of what you refer to as a terrorist regime for at least 10+ years.  Now that the pussy grabber has pulled out of the deal the "terrorist regime" is back on the track to getting their NUKES.

What happens if some radicals get a hold of an Iranian NUKE...  Do you think they use it or threaten to use it on the "Zionist State" of Israel, or shove it up SA's asshole


Ironically some people think that keeping the "terrorist regime" from acquiring NUKES is an actual win on foreign policy.  

You do know that it was the US that gave Iran its first Nuclear technology the first time it pulled a regime change in Iran right?

But you understand this is a case of a US president making a treaty without the consent or even involving the Senate. That deal was really, truly "never a deal." And there is the place where there was a problem. If Trump had wanted to fix it and continue it, he would have ... I guess ... sent it for discussion and ratification in the Senate. But that wasn't what he wanted to do.

I'm not even seeing where this is wrong or unfair or un businesslike...


Reference

The Treaty Clause is part of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries, which, upon receiving the advice and consent of a two-thirds supermajority vote of the United States Senate, become binding with the force of federal law.

I don't know the exact details as to how Obama helped in the creation of the treaty, and I wouldn't mind you explaining it to me so I can research it further, this is a very interesting topic. But please don't suggest I'm trying to argue in bad faith. First you said because it was a bad deal, now you are talking about Obama. If there are any interesting details from your perspective, I would be happy to hear them. What basic requirements are you referring to?

No, let's ignore your goal - shifting and stick to the basics.

Did Obama follow the basic requirements for an international treaty under US law with his deal with the Iranian dictators?

Yes or no please.

Yes but it shows that American governments are fickle with their policy; that they will renege whenever it suits them, you know something is wrong when basically all other Western powers are for this deal. The idea that you should just destroy a deal, however bad or good, just because of a change in government is ridiculous, and shows a certain arrogance. Not to mention the Darroch leak which suggested most of the Trump adminsistration had made very little plans regarding policy on Iran.

Of course, Iran is by no means innocent either, but sanctions are punishing ordinary civilians and not those in charge. Of course their ideology is backward, but this doesn't give America the right to do whatever it likes for its own narrow interests. Look at what Saudi Arabia, a supposed US ally has done in recent years (murdered a journalist maybe?). And don't be short-sighted enough to forget that the US worsened Islamic fundamentalism in Iran via its repeated backing of the unpopular Shah.

Trying to leverage their geographic position and retaliate for having their own tanker seized I guess. Can only cross fingers this don't erupt into a major war.


China need to distract the public from their slowing growth rates. The people only care about their own comfort and their fine with their gov't as long as their needs are met so if the economy goes down, the gov't would find itself surrounded by an angry mob. That's also one reason they're whipping up nationalist sentiment over the South China Sea, portraying it as a conflict against the US.

Trust? Nonsense.

The American people didn't make that deal with Iran, and the American Congress or Senate didn't make that deal.

It's fine to revoke it, those facts notwithstanding, because it was a terribly bad deal.

Now tell me how much a promise from those Iranian mullahs is worth, the ones that believe in Takiyya.

Yes but Trump was the driving force behind it. Right now the Republicans will do whatever they need to do to stay in power, if that means supporting Trump they will gladly follow him without question. Don't forget his campaign promise on Iran. And "the people" does not mean less than 40% of the population.

.... was because a majority of voting Americans put in in the White House to do things just like this.

The people first, the power brokers last.

As others have said, this does not accurately portray the whole situation. The USA started by withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal. I suppose whether this deal was good or not can be argued, but it was already in place and agreed to. In fact, the European powers were pretty satisfied with it and saw it as a major diplomatic step forward. What Trump did, revoking this deal, is completely unacceptable in diplomatic practice.The only reason it was probably done is to appease allies like the Saudis.

To drive the point home, let's take a hypothetical situation. America has an important strategic deal with another country, which is suddenly revoked for no good reason, and with heavy sanctions imposed on America, causing the dollar to sink down into the ground, and with even more Americans being afflicted with poverty. Will America just passively comply? Of course not.

And you are telling me that Iran should just bow down to blatant aggression? America is doing everything it can to provoke Iran, of course Iran can't just submit to so much humiliation. And any future trust for salvaging any other deals with iran is destroyed.

thats not good for britain many british companies will try to sail under nonbritish flags in the future

after brexit they have exposed themselves to the free sharks of global politics

Looking into it, I find the following.

https://www.fort-russ.com/2019/07/piracy-iran-reveals-why-the-uk-illegally-seized-its-oil-tanker-at-gibraltar/

Gibraltar police and customs agencies, aided by a detachment of British Royal Marines, boarded and impounded supertanker Grace 1, carrying Iranian oil, in the Strait of Gibraltar on Thursday, upon a request from the United States.

Later that day, Iran’s Foreign Ministry summoned Britain’s ambassador to the country, Rob Macaire, to express its strong protest at the move. He was told that the British Royal Marines’ move was tantamount to “maritime piracy.”

London claims that the tanker had been carrying Iranian oil to Syria, which is under European Union’s sanctions but Iran says first, the tanker was not headed to Syria, and second, Iran is not a member an EU member and also not subject to any European oil embargo. Tehran has called for an immediate release of the oil tanker warning that the responsibility for consequences of this provocative acts falls on London. “I warn England that you are the initiator of insecurity in seas and you will later understand its repercussions,” President Rouhani said Wednesday.

Iran says US is behind the measure which tries to bring down Iranian oil sales to zero as part of its maximum pressure policy against the Islamic Republic. Iranian officials reiterate that this policy will not yield any result for Washington as Iranians are well familiar with the culture of resistance.

Seems to me Iran's bitch is with the government of Gilbrador. Oh, you know what? Iran seems to think so as well. Iran is talking with Gilbrador trying to get the tanker back, but their Supreme Court says it can be detained another 30 days.

https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2019/07/19/601305/Gibraltar-Iran-UK-tanker-Grace-1

....An initial order by the court authorizing the detention of the vessel would lapse after Friday.

The court's decision came a day after a senior Gibraltar's official described as “constructive” talks with Iran, raising hopes that the tanker would be released imminently.

So what you're doing is attacking me based on something that is true - Iran can (and should) go through regime change. They're a power that has been supporting terrorism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism) for a long time.

Real diplomatic, referring to the US president (the leader of the free world) as  a 'stupid cunt of a President' -- Even disregarding that for a second, the Iran deal was shit (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/05/iran-nuclear-deal-flawed/559595/) and it was a way for Obama to say he had won an American deal on foreign policy.

I do think there should be regime change in Iran, I don't think the US should do nation-building though -- just remove that regime from power and allow for them to pick a new leader.

And this is why the rest of the world calls you guys the worlds police and surprise surprise some countries get a little touchy when you all want to police their shit....

Regime change has been such a resounding success for the US historically, I mean especially in the middle east...(/s)

Your stupid cunt of a president pulled out of the agreement that was keeping Iran from getting Nukes...

But don't worry if Bolton, Pompeo and you get your way their will be a regime change at the cost of thousands upon thousands of lives, and then in a decade or 2 they will be the new enemy and you can do it all over again!!!!!!  Imagine how many trillions of USD in profit the military industrial complex is making though eh!!!!!!!

I feel like it is a valid move from Iranian government in their endeavors of proving that they control the Strait of Hormuz.
After the recent empowerment of US forces in the area, Iran will try more to show that they are not afraid of any US forces.

Iran may have the ability to cause some issues with global trade, but the North Koreans have the ability to literally destroy a certain city in the world just by sending off their nuclear bomb.

World trade disruptions mean nothing compared to nuclear weapons. You have to understand that.

They don't have much of a hand, and are trying to make the most out of what they have. If Iran can survive over the long term, they need to get sanctions lifted. Their actions is getting the attention of the international community, but not in a way such that is provoking enough fear to be willing to lift sanctions. The risk is they will escalate to more hostile actions that results in a war.
North Korea does not have the ability to disrupt important trade the same way Iran does. I would say Iran actually has a better chance to get sanctions lifted without a complete Nuclear ban + inspections to verify because of their proximity to the Strait of Hormuz. Technically speaking, there are not any real negotiations going on with North Korea; my understanding is the US is unwilling to budge as to what it is asking for in exchange for lifting any sanctions, that is the complete, verifiable denuclearation that cannot be reversed in North Korea. The US may be willing to discuss what else it will do besides lifting sanctions after the above happens.

A ship for a ship is not an escalation.  If Iran's ships can't safely travel through Gibralter, British ships should not be allowed to safely travel through Hormuz.  Chronology is key to determining who provoked who and who is the aggressor. Britain provoked this by capturing grace 1.   450 years of events to review and you still can't figure out who has been the aggressor around the world. 

You are not just ignoring history, you aren't even using basic logic.  The same few countries are and have been involved in conflicts around the entire globe with so many different parties yet you think its always the fault of the other parties and not the same few countries constantly causing problems around the world.
 

This is based on the interpretations of Iranian actions and talks by National Security experts from the Times.

Not an opinion piece though I could see how you could interpret it as such as it is pretty much just someone's interpretation (which is an opinion) on the matter.

Before I listen to this long form piece, did you base the idea on statements from Iran itself or the interpretation of the reporters here? All sources have a bias, but that is more of a problem if it is an opinion piece rather than just reporting facts.

Yeah, I listen to a podcast from the WSJ and the NY Times.

Had a very interesting take on the whole situation here - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/02/podcasts/the-daily/north-korea-iran-nuclear-deal.html

Very listen. Just know you may have a liberal bias on Ny times and  consv on wsj

This is interesting, I had not read this. Do you have any sources for statements from them where they compare themselves to North Korea?

I fully understand what they’re trying to do. But I think they’re overplaying their hand here.

They’re comparing themselves a little too much to the North Koreans, and they think they can get the same negotiations and deal with their sanctions. The only reason North Korea may get that deal is because theres no other power in North Korea that the US wants to take over and can see bringing peace.

Iran is different, Iran has people that can takeover.

If Iran had been successful in seizing the ship, we would be much closer to war with Iran.

I suspect this will eventually lead to Iran escalating the situation in one way or another by making it more dangerous.  for ships to travel through the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran's goal is to make this passage way unsafe to travel through to get the West to remove sanctions against Iran. If they cannot use their Navy to do this, they may resort to surface-to-surface missiles to attack civilian commercial ships traveling through the Straight; this would clearly provoke conflict.

I don't think it is very likely to see the year ending without some kind of military action against Iran. 

Is that kind of like "hate speech" being a form of "verbal violence" justifying an actual violent response?

Selling oil is violation of international law?  Nope.  Oh its just when Iran sells oil to someone you don't want to have oil?  See how that works?  When you think you own the entire planet, you get to try to control who does what with whom when.  Its a telling slip that you called EU sanctions "international law".   The world never came together and said Syria can't have oil.   Sanctions are nothing more than a form of economic violence.

IMO Iran is desperately trying to provoke an armed response from the USA. I would wager the Chinese have pledged to back them up militarily if it were to happen, and if it did Russia would likely step in too. China can't take the USA alone, but with Russia and Iranian fronts also active they have a very good chance. This is 100% strategic rope a dope type tactics. Thankfully Trump has resisted this response so far. China is suffering economically and they are desperate to find ways to change the status quo, and a very irate Iran is a convenient proxy to do so for them.

Dishonest of you to fail to notice that Iran had been violating EU sanctions on Syria by attempting to sell them oil. So they had been violating international law that they had originally agreed to, and they were punished for it. Retailing when you're wrong isn't something that is going to work too well in the international stage.

So dishonest of you not to mention that this was an equal response to Britain pirating the Iranian oil tanker grace 1 in Gibraltar.  The world clearly belongs to the US, UK and their allies.  Everyone else is just living in it on lease. 

Yet again, Iran is going down a path of no return as they attempted to stop a British commercial vessel today which was in the Strait of Hormuz. They had only turned stopped and turned around when they were approached by a British Royal Navy Frigate.

The leaders in Iran are obviously attempting to show that they will stop at nothing in order to get a deal out of the Trump administration and the EU, though it seems like they may fail to retain their leadership on the country if they continue to anger more and more world powers.

I'll be attempting to post updates as they come (https://www.wsj.com/articles/three-iranian-vessels-tried-to-block-u-k-ship-from-passing-through-strait-of-hormuz-11562822874?mod=hp_lead_pos1)