Iran humiliated as 'five ships FAIL to seize British oil tanker in Persian Gulf standoff'
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Omaha Steve (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).
Source: UK Expresd
IRANIAN ships have failed to hijack a UK oil tanker in the Persian Gulf in a huge blow to Tehran on Thursday, according to reports.
According to Sky News the ships, thought to be Iranian, attempted to seize the British tanker as it skirted close to Iranian waters. The ship was ordered to change course before the alleged Revolutionary Guard ships tried to seize the tanker. The Royal Navy frigate, HMS Montrose had been escorting the ship.
When the Iranian boats demanded that it changed its course, the frigate turned its guns on them and issued a warning, according to reports.
Upon issuing the warning, the Iranian ships retreated.
Read more: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/world/1151881/Iran-news-latest-update-World-War-3-khamenei-Middle-east-UK-oil-tanker-persian-gulf-Trump/amp
ck4829
(34,971 posts)Hmmm....
And I love the URL: "WORLD WAR 3", totally not sensationalist... at all.
cstanleytech
(26,080 posts)are not much more stable than Donald Trump.
ck4829
(34,971 posts)Will wonders never cease?
cstanleytech
(26,080 posts)from all sides especially with drones as they are not exactly expensive to purchase and they are a hell of alot cheaper usually than a manned aircraft.
As for what happened I think it probably was someone with an ego the size of a small mountain that thought the tanker captain would roll over kind of like how Trump with his ego the size of a small moon thought Mexico would roll over and pay for the wall.
reACTIONary
(5,749 posts).... the stones are not necessarily cheep. The global hawk that was recently shot down costs $220 million .
cstanleytech
(26,080 posts)the region and in a fix some of those powers like Iran could get by with some far cheaper drones for surveillance.
reACTIONary
(5,749 posts)Massacure
(7,497 posts)The United States as 360 Predators and 160 Reapers, and they only cost $4 million/$16 million respectively. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the military has a couple dozen of these stationed in the Middle East.
reACTIONary
(5,749 posts)oldsoftie
(12,410 posts)Several drones can stay on station for 24 hrs at a time, not to mention JSTARS, which can cover 100s of miles from one location.
reACTIONary
(5,749 posts)... this has got to be the most heavily surveilled waterway in the world! No coincidence, just standard operating procedure.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Why do you think we have so many drones?
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)oil reserves? "thought to be Iranian" (OK that's proven?). What was the failed attempt, who reported it and can we verify via trusted sources?
DetroitLegalBeagle
(1,904 posts)for the Iranian tanker the Brits seized last week.
keithbvadu2
(36,360 posts)Many of these type events/stories take 2 or 3 days to finally get an accurate version.
liberalmuse
(18,670 posts)Sorry, will need to have it verified that this isn't Russian or US propaganda before I even begin to believe this really happened.
ripcord
(5,081 posts)Trying to force the tanker to change course gave the frigate every right to open fire.
ck4829
(34,971 posts)This sensationalist 'story' is just ridiculous, they aren't even trying anymore.
ripcord
(5,081 posts)Really?
ck4829
(34,971 posts)"5 ships"
What were they really? 5 rowboats? 5 battleships? 5 rubber duckies?
Something's fishy in the Gulf of Tonkin... er, Persia.
reACTIONary
(5,749 posts)... small, fast, armed speed boats. It may be an exaggeration to call these ships, but they are armed and dangerous.
cstanleytech
(26,080 posts)is Iran.
That aside I do not think it justification for any proposed reprisal given the fact that the boats retreated after being warned off.
Eugene
(61,592 posts)That said, CNN reporting of this incident is available here:
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/10/politics/iran-attempted-seize-british-tanker/index.html
bronxiteforever
(9,287 posts)Especially with their support of UKIP.
reACTIONary
(5,749 posts)Capture of the Iranian oil tanker based on fabricated excuses ... will not be unanswered and when necessary Tehran will give appropriate answer, Bagheri said.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-a-iran-tanker/british-capture-of-iranian-tanker-wont-go-unanswered-officer-idUSKCN1U40HO
cloudythescribbler
(2,586 posts)the point here is to step back and look at the bigger picture
things were actually relatively stable -- not perfect, and Iran was doing lots of things US and NATO didn't like, but they WERE abiding by the nuclear accords by all credible observers, and they were NOT engaging in a policy of systematic provocation
then, for reasons of his own, including domestic politics and fulfilling a promise to his rabid core base, DT pulled out of Iran accord unilaterally, subsequently ramping up sanctions, including on 3d party countries & interests trading w/Iran.
it's no secret that powerful forces in the DT Admin (Bolton only most visible but don't forget close highly militaristic Saudi ties) are itching for war w/Iran, and have made no secret of it
so part of this policy of provocation was to seize an Iranian oil tanker. as for violating sanctions on Syria, everyone knows that Syria war is over for all practical purposes & Assad just finishing up/mopping up remaining pocket(s) of resistance. this is no time for EU countries to be seizing Iranian tankers while US trashing important Iran nuclear deal, and Iran now breaching uranium limit
so UK seizes tanker, but has to use EU sanctions as (more palatable) excuse. Iran retaliates, and UK responds w/threat of force. Iran seeking to assert itself while AVOIDING war, while UK doing US bidding (as w/Assange and Ecuador/UK) in provoking Iran by seizing oil tanker. Shame on UK admin, which is totally unpopular, and thus more dependent on US
those who are marching urging NO WAR ON IRAN happen to be right
those who suggested DT would somehow be less dangerous/imperialistic than HRC were just blowing smoke
our country's leadership is engaged in a policy of brinksmanship, and as in Iraq War, they have managed to rope UK into it
i will assume that UK military folk in this incident had little choice, but they sure as hell did NOT have to seize an oil tanker in this volatile situation. shame on UK for going along w/nutjobs occupying the US White House!
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)reACTIONary
(5,749 posts).... however, there has been a good deal of conspiratorial innuendo and accusations concerning "false flag" operations and the like, in this thread and others related to these incidents.
I think it's a good idea to remember who we are dealing with and to be realistic and clear minded about what is going on in the world.
jpak
(41,741 posts)reACTIONary
(5,749 posts)nitpicker
(7,153 posts)Omaha Steve
(99,055 posts)Post the latest news from reputable mainstream news websites ONLY!