The Ship Model Forum

There were explosions on an Iranian tanker in the Red Sea - and Iran claims that it was hit by two missiles:

[url]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-iran-tanker/iran-oil-tanker-hit-by-two-missiles-off-saudi-coast-iranian-state-media-idUSKBN1WQ0G0[/url]

An update on the tanker taken by Iran weeks ago:

[url=https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/iran-says-british-tanker-is-free-to-go-after-2-months-of-detention/ar-AAHJ9iM?li=AAggFp4]New York Times[/url]


[quote] [b][size=200] Iran Says British Tanker Is Free to Go After 2 Months of Detention[/size][/b]
Richard Pérez-Peña and Daniel Victor
8 hrs ago

© Morteza Akhoondi/Tasnim News Agency, via Associated Press Speedboats from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps circled the British-owned oil tanker Stena Impero in July.
A British-flagged tanker that Iran seized in July is now free to leave, Tehran said on Monday, more than a month after the British authorities released an Iranian tanker that had been detained off Gibraltar.
The news offered a rare sign of comity at a time when Iran has been in an escalating cycle of confrontation with its Persian Gulf neighbors and with the United States, including the shooting down of drones, the seizure of tankers and, most recently, an attack on major oil installations in Saudi Arabia.

Officials of the United States and Saudi Arabia, Iran’s chief rival in the region, have blamed Tehran for the Sept. 14 attack on oil facilities in the kingdom, raising the prospect of retaliatory strikes and even war. But so far, the only apparent action they have taken against Tehran is a tightening of economic sanctions.
(...SNIPPED)[/quote]

A third tanker seized!


[url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/08/04/iran-seizes-foreign-oil-tanker-us-trump-tensions/1914486001/?fbclid=IwAR0flIlZbqkkZ5jc_iQUW7wVpqf5a-MAI-lhk3J3Z6LLP7dkC4cResVWh1s]USA Today[/url]


[quote] [b][size=200] Iran seizes another foreign oil tanker, state media says[/size][/b]
Kim Hjelmgaard, USA TODAY Published 6:43 a.m. ET Aug. 4, 2019 | Updated 12:21 p.m. ET Aug. 4, 2019
Another foreign oil tanker was seized in the Persian Gulf, Iran's state media said Sunday. It was the third such ship to be detained by Tehran amid high tensions between Iran and the U.S. after Washington renewed sanctions on Iran's oil exports.(...SNIPPED)[/quote]

Latest posts are too political and should be deleted by moderator.

To think that in this kind of conflict there are "good" and "bad" guys is always misleading.

My critic is not an attempt to defend the Iranian rulers, but to point out that Trump's Iran politics is counter-productive and everything, which supports that instead of stopping it, is also counter-productive.

The last elections in Iran were all won by moderate forces - but the economic sanctions and the military pressure helps the hardliners in the regime to hold on power and to deflect the anger about the problems to "foreign" forces (Trump etc.). The same happened in the 1990s with the economic sanctions against Hussein - in spite of the uprisings he could stay in power. And the western military interventions were all disasters (Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya..) all failing to create stable, democratic states. It is time for a different approach - but that was sabotaged by Trump intentionally and by the British government not intentionally.

No I didn't forget that but it is only part of the cause of Iran's aggressive behaviour. I think Trump was wrong to abandon the treaty but he seems to really hate Iran and is spurred on by his crooked friend in Israel. However, Iran's government is not innocent either.

Do not let dislike of Trump drive you into thinking that the Iranians must be the "good guys"! They are much worse that DT - and that is saying something! He is motivated by lust for power and greed, but greed is the bigger factor by far. The president of the US could have started a war if that was what he wanted but really it is money that motivates him and he is making all kinds of contacts all around the globe with an eye to making even greater deals for his businesses when he leaves office.

Iran is run by religious loonies and they are busy trying to spread their version of the "Truth" all over the world. So don't choose which idiot to side with, just treat both with the contempt they have so gloriously won.

The British economy was much stronger when the Royal Navy had the ability for world wide operations. E.g. between the world wars (when the Empire was already in decline!), 70 cruisers was considered necessary in addition to a large force of sloops for policing the sea. Obviously, the RN today with six destroyers, 13 frigates, and 4 offshore patrol vessels cannot not do the same. Even with quadrupling the spending for the RN, the force would be obviously insufficient, the Cold War levels were already insufficient (even before Thatcher and her cuts). Here the numbers - and less the quality of the ships - counts.

You forget something regarding Iran: after "Deal Killer" Trump sabotaged the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action the remaining western countries were not able to fulfil their obligations from the treaty, i.e. to keep up the levels of trade. If the European signatories of the treaty would have been able to fulfil their part, there would have been unlikely that kind of escalation. The treaty should protect Iran from an attack from the USA without it requiring to have a nuclear deterrent. When Trump withdrew the USA from the treaty, the purpose was threatened - and it got useless, when even the economic part was not longer working because the European companies where not protected by their governments (including the British) from the US sanctions.

The British Empire is dead and gone. I wish people would stop thinking in those terms. Unfortunately the new Prime Minister seems to think he is a reincarnation of Churchill who was obsessed with keeping the empire when it was clearly a foolish thing to do.

The UK has the world's 5th largest economy apparently, so it is not unreasonable to suggest that the UK could protect its shipping with some of that money. However, strategic thinking is not apparent in the ideology of the Conservative Party ranks at the moment.

It is not even necessary for the Royal Navy to protect UK ships throughout the world as there are are plenty of responsible governments who will abide by the laws of the sea and keep their sea-lanes open. But it must have been obvious that a terrorist state like Iran would use the excuse of the detention of the Grace 1 as a pretext for piracy. And let's keep in mind that this comes after the "mysterious" attacks on the other tankers that seem to point to Iran as well.

UK is today very far away from the power of the British Empire. Off course, it cannot protect shipping everywhere in the world. For me, it is difficult to understand how that can be even expected. It is more likely that there will be no Great Britain anymore in 10 years than a UK with a navy, which could protect shipping everywhere in the world. For that the British economy is simply too small.

I do not have any suspicions regarding the motives of the British government. I think it was a stupid mistake. It makes everything worse in case of Iran, strengthens the hardliners there, does not help in Syria at all (it is too late now, Assad is unfortunately winning) etc. It would have been necessary to pressure the US government to protect and improve the deal with Iran instead of making everything worse.

Spain maybe be still have official claims for Gibraltar, but in case of a Brexit it would be better for them to offer Gibraltar something to convince them to separate from Britain to stay in contact with EU instead of doing something military, which is not likely at all.

But perhaps one interesting aspect: Trump was not successful at all in convincing other states to protect shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, because nobody wants to support his irresponsible politics. In contrast, the British government got support from several European governments. E.g. Denmark will send ships.

Maxim, I did not say there were people from everywhere wanting to attack Britain! Spain has been conducting a series of infringements of Gibraltar's territorial rights for a long time and they make the claim that Gibraltar belongs to them. Seeing how the Spanish government treats the Catalans it is not unreasonable to suggest that they view Brexit as a chance to try to separate Gibraltar from the UK and who knows what they will get up to?

You talk about war as though it is not already a part of Iran's foreign policy. In Syria, the Iranian's have shown no reluctance to engage in the murder of civilians and have taken the opportunity to occupy parts of the country. There is a danger of war with Israel as Pres. Trump has shown that he will do anything for his friend there.

I understand your suspicion of the UK's motives for acting as it did but it is possible that it was simply a matter of enforcing the law. Whether it was a good idea to do so is an interesting question, but given the nature of Assad's regime, perhaps it is not such a bad thing to try to squeeze him a bit?

What this incident does show is that the UK is unable to protect the shipping that enables the free circulation of its economy throughout the world. After Brexit that will no longer be a problem: no economy = no need for protection.

It is not about "allowing Iran" to do something. It is the question what to do. For sure there are warmongers and other people who increase the danger of war in a irresponsible way.

The British government had clearly supported the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action ("Iran nuclear deal"), also after the "Deal Killer" Trump sabotaged it. And it still does. But the action against the tanker was clearly counter-productive, especially, because also the British government (as the other western signatories) was not able to fulfil its obligations from the plan.

And there are not everywhere people who want to attack Britain, including Gibraltar. A little less panic does help from time to time.

[quote="FrancisMcN"][quote="maxim"]But it was stupid of the British government to act like that in this very moment. It is obvious that the Iranian government would interpret that as a support of Trump.[/quote]

The statement by Jeremy Hunt as Foreign Secretary to Parliament earlier this week and subsequent debate made it clear that the detention of Grace 1 at Gibraltar was triggered by US intelligence advice about the arrival of the tanker in Iberian waters, with enough warning for Gib to pass a law so that they could arrest it.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2019-07-22c.1117.0&s=gibraltar#g1119.0

That suggests to me considerable external pressure on the Gib government to get this done and it is hardly surprising that Iran considers that it was more about enforcing export sanctions on Iran rather than preventing oil getting to Syria.

It would be interesting to know if any other EU country has been so diligent in enforcing the sanctions on Syria?[/quote]

I think it is very important to note here that the UK has offered to release the tanker if Iran gives an assurance that it will not deliver its cargo to Syria. That suggests that this is wholly about sanctions on Syria and not Iran. It is also very different from hijacking a ship in international waters and kidnapping the crew.

I do wonder why people are so willing to give Iran a free pass when they commit an act of piracy? As for pressure being applied on the Gibraltar government, they are very unlikely to pay much attention to a UK government which is so shamefully abandoning them in favour of Brexit. Once we leave the EU Spain is more likely to step up its aggressive actions towards the territory and we can see what the cuts to the navy have done to our ability to assert our sovereignty!

[quote="maxim"]Britain also took the crew of the Iranian tanker [i]Grace 1[/i] as "hostage", at least the captain was detained.

It is not surprising that Iran does the same. It would be normal that the commanding officers are detained if they are suspected to have committed serious crimes.

I do not claim that the crew of the Swedish tanker [i]Stena Impero[/i] did commit crimes.

But it was stupid of the British government to act like that in this very moment. It is obvious that the Iranian government would interpret that as a support of Trump.[/quote]

Detaining the captain of a a ship for a suspected breach of law is not at all the same as holding the whole crew prisoner. The captain has legal responsibilities that they do not.

Apparently the UK has gone to some lengths to distance itself from the US government's hostility to Iran. I am not sure whether that is the right thing to do or not, but they feel that diplomacy has some traction.

[quote="maxim"]But it was stupid of the British government to act like that in this very moment. It is obvious that the Iranian government would interpret that as a support of Trump.[/quote]

The statement by Jeremy Hunt as Foreign Secretary to Parliament earlier this week and subsequent debate made it clear that the detention of Grace 1 at Gibraltar was triggered by US intelligence advice about the arrival of the tanker in Iberian waters, with enough warning for Gib to pass a law so that they could arrest it.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2019-07-22c.1117.0&s=gibraltar#g1119.0

That suggests to me considerable external pressure on the Gib government to get this done and it is hardly surprising that Iran considers that it was more about enforcing export sanctions on Iran rather than preventing oil getting to Syria.

It would be interesting to know if any other EU country has been so diligent in enforcing the sanctions on Syria?

Britain also took the crew of the Iranian tanker [i]Grace 1[/i] as "hostage", at least the captain was detained.

It is not surprising that Iran does the same. It would be normal that the commanding officers are detained if they are suspected to have committed serious crimes.

I do not claim that the crew of the Swedish tanker [i]Stena Impero[/i] did commit crimes.

But it was stupid of the British government to act like that in this very moment. It is obvious that the Iranian government would interpret that as a support of Trump.

The fact that Iran has taken hostages shows that even they do not believe their own ridiculous propaganda that they are acting with in the law.

An update:


[url=https://news.abs-cbn.com/overseas/07/25/19/swedish-owner-of-tanker-seized-by-iran-says-crew-safe]Agence-France-Presse/ABS-CBN(Philippines)[/url]


[quote] [b][size=200] Swedish owner of tanker seized by Iran says crew 'safe'[/size][/b]
Agence France-Presse
Posted at Jul 25 2019 01:29 AM


STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN - The Swedish company that owns the UK-flagged oil tanker seized by Iran said Wednesday it had finally been able to contact its crew being held onboard and they declared themselves "safe".
Stena Bulk said in a statement that the ship's captain "advised that everyone was safe with good cooperation with the Iranian personnel onboard".
(...SNIPPED)[/quote]

The Iranians backed off before when faced with Montrose. Putting Marines on tankers is fine if the Iranians try to board but if they simply surround the vessel with their boats then the captain has no choice but to do what they tell him and if the Marines end up in Iranian harbour that would be worse.

As far as I know the UK always tries to enforce Maritime Law as it is well aware that we still get most of our goods by sea. I think this situation should have been anticipated and more ships sent to the Gulf to deal with Iran's retaliation but presumably there were no other ships available.

Ironically for a government that has unleashed Brexit upon us, and talks a lot about sovereignty, they have presided over the dismantling of the navy that has led to this problem. Make Britain great again? Make Britain a laughing stock more like.

Can anyone point to any other country than Gibraltar (presumably with UK approval) enforcing the EU sanctions on Syria at sea on a ship owned by a non EU country? Presumably Syria can always get oil from its military partner Russia and I don't see anyone taking action against Russian owned vessels somehow, so what is the point of arresting the Grace 1 in the first place?

I deplore what is going on in Syria and have no doubt that the June attacks on other tankers were instigated by Iran but UK seems to have made itself the easy target for Iran to try to put pressure on Western interests. It looks likely that Gib/UK has taken unilateral action without thinking through the likely consequences as this has made UK appear in Iranian eyes (and others if the truth be told) as supporting Donald Trump's measures to make the US sanctions on Iran more effective.

As to RN action to protect UK registered shipping, would more frigates and destroyers stop individual merchant ships being hi-jacked by large numbers of IRG fast boats and helicopters? Perhaps having a detachment of Marines on each vessel for the Hormuz transit would be more effective?

The question still stands: where is the Royal Navy? I suspect it is in refit or under repair. It is now so small that one frigate is tasked with rushing around the Gulf trying to stop all of the IRGC pirates.