https://maritime-executive.com/arti...n-approaches-laden-crude-oil-tanker-near-oman I'm just getting this thread started, as I was surprised no one has picked up on this news, of a marked escalation of Iran's belligerence, towards oil tankers. Then again, I realize there are a lot of other, important happenings, coinciding with this, which deserve coverage as well. I've seen the topic of fireworks prices increasing more under Biden, than they had under Trump-- as crucial an issue, as it is timely. Then there is the still ongoing Dylan Mulvaney/Bud Light controversy. And somewhere in the country, a trans female complained, because a gynecologist wouldn't see her. Also, some woke activist was left stunned, by someone sports star, I assume, saying that a man couldn't beat Serena Williams, in tennis. So lots of front page news. Nevertheless, I thought this seemed a significant change, especially considering all of the domestic unrest, within Iran. So, if anyone cares to weigh-in on this development, I'd be interested to hear your speculations. Those learning more about the story, also, will now have someplace to post those updates. <Snip> Iran approached two commercial tankers underway in the area around the Strait of Hormuz and fired at one of the vessels in an attempt to stop a laden crude oil tanker according to U.S. Naval Forces Central Command. Security services are reporting the incident with both the U.S. Navy and the UK’s Maritime Trade Operations monitoring operation confirming the details. “The Iranian navy did make attempts to seize commercial tankers lawfully transiting international waters,” Cmdr. Tim Hawkins, spokesman for the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet told reporters. “The U.S. Navy responded immediately and prevented those seizures.”
Terrorist states gunna terrorist Iran has been itching for a fight for a while. Now they appear to be picking one.
I didn’t read the story in the above link, but the story I did read said Iran has attacked or seized nearly 20 ships since 2021.
I don't know about that, but you are right, that this is an ongoing story. The article below, from June, says that Iran has "harassed, attacked or interfered with 15 internationally flagged merchant vessels," in just the past 2 years. But that does not mean that they all were oil tankers. The article also mentions, though it is unsure if it's a coincidence, that these seizures occurred around the fifth anniversary of Trump's withdrawing from the nuclear deal. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/01/why-iran-keeps-seizing-oil-tankers-in-the-strait-of-hormuz.html#:~:text=In the most recent incidents,collision with an Iranian ship. Though the information I'm reading is not all consistent, probably because articles are referring to numerous incidents, the picture I seem to get is that the U.S. confiscated an Iranian oil tanker at the end of last year, but also in late April, which led to Iran's confiscating 2 tankers, at the end of April and start of May. The reason for our "confiscation" or, in the video, below, our "redirecting," of an Iranian tanker, bound for China, is the sanctions on Iran, for continuing to reportedly develop their nuclear program. I think it was the Reuters article, at bottom, which said that when this sort of thing has happened, in the past, Iran has made it a tit-for-tat swapping. But according to the source linked above, Iran has used several different pretexts, with the other tankers/ships, recently seized. From my own perspective, firing on the tankers, depending on what they are firing with, is a concerning proposition. The tanker fired upon today was hit but sustained no significant damage. Is Iran shooting anything large enough caliber, to potentially pierce the hull? <Snip> In the most recent incidents, Iran alleges that the tankers Niovi and Purity were seized over separate legal disputes regarding ownership, and that the Advantage Sweet was taken due to a collision with an Iranian ship. <End> https://www.reuters.com/world/middl...nker-amid-tehran-tensions-sources-2023-04-28/ <Snip> WASHINGTON, April 28 (Reuters) - The U.S. confiscated Iranian oil on a tanker at sea in recent days in a sanctions enforcement operation, three sources said, and days later Iran seized another oil-laden tanker in retaliation, according to a maritime security firm. As oil markets remain jittery, the cargo seizure is the latest escalation between Washington and Tehran after years of sanctions pressure by the U.S. over Iran's nuclear program. Iran does not recognise the sanctions, and its oil exports have been rising...
Here is another, related incident, but from 2019. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.al...sought-by-us-over-iran-sanctions-was-hijacked <Snip> Tanker sought by US over Iran sanctions was ‘hijacked’ Satellite photos showed Dominica-flagged vessel in Iranian waters on Tuesday. An Iranian navy boat tries to stop the fire of an oil tanker after it was attacked in the Gulf of Oman, June 13, 2019. Tasnim News Agency/Handout via REUTERS An oil tanker sought by the United States over allegedly circumventing sanctions on Iran was hijacked on July 5 off the coast of the United Arab Emirates, a seafarers’ organisation said on Wednesday. Satellite photos showed the vessel in Iranian waters on Tuesday. It was not immediately clear what happened on board the Dominica-flagged MT Gulf Sky, though its reported hijacking comes after months of tensions between Iran and the US. David Hammond, CEO of the United Kingdom-based Human Rights at Sea, said he took a witness statement from the captain of the MT Gulf Sky, confirming the ship had been hijacked. Hammond said 26 of the Indian sailors on board had made it back to India, while two remained in Tehran, without elaborating. <End> I guess, between the war in Ukraine, and former President Trump's legal woes, the mainstream press (or at least on t.v.) has lately given these incidents short shrift.
Well, making moves on two different tankers, in one day, seemed like an increased focus, to me; an intentional emphasis on this tactic. You think that it is merely happenstance, and is indicative of nothing, not even Iranian leaders' growing desperation, or at least such a level of frustration among leadership, to induce recklessness? Or perhaps it is a signal of Iran's assessing that the West is too involved with Ukraine, to muster as much of a reaction, to its provocations? Does it suggest anything about Iran's finances? Could this be a new strategy, with the goal of so upsetting crude deliveries, that Western powers would negotiate a loosening of sanctions, to get Iran to desist? Might this even suggest a reason that Iran needs additional funds? Those were the types of things I'd had in mind, when I'd invited others' speculations. I'll mark you down for, "nothing at all unusual or suggestive about it."
Iran did this in abundance in the late 80s and early 90s and the US stepped up their pressure and Iran had to back down. Of course they have harassed shipping in between then and now. I wouldn't read too much into this unless Iran creates more havoc. I am confident the world powers, especially Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will have no issue if the US needs to interject.
What are they going to do? There's a lot of open water and Iranian attack rafters swarming around in it. The US and UK navies will scare them off full stop. They won't pursue them. To do otherwise will set off a chain of events that will lead to nuclear armageddon. So, to avoid that, the US Navy will take some statements and the US will send a strongly worded complaint to Iran. The only other option is a tit-for-tat retaliation where the US and Iran keep seizing each other's oil tankers and then running off. Don't forget that Iran was able to capture American Naval vessels a few years ago and take those sailors hostage. I don't know when the United States Navy became so weak in recent years, but we haven't been able to project naval sea power like we did in the past. We used to protect the world's sea lanes from piracy, but now we've let things slide and can't even reach some areas.
Well, as one of my sources had pointed out, since the U.S. has stepped up its presence, the greater the number of warships, the more potential there is for an incident to occur, between the two country's forces. It had just felt as if things might be heating up but, that being the last thing anyone needs right now, I hope your analysis proves correct. From the end of my Reuters article, which I hadn't before finished reading, though, here is evidence that there will be forces, on each side, who will be pushing their countries toward confrontation. <Snip> In a step likely to exacerbate tensions, 12 U.S. senators on Thursday urged President Joe Biden to remove Treasury Department policy hurdles that have prevented the Department of Homeland Security from seizing Iranian oil shipments for more than a year. In 2020, Washington confiscated four cargoes of Iranian fuel aboard foreign ships that were bound for Venezuela and transferred them with the help of undisclosed foreign partners onto two other ships which then sailed to the U.S. <End Snip> Those Senators are a bipartisan group (one of their leaders being my own Sen. Richard Blumenthal, whom I hold in high regard). https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pb...tep-up-seizures-of-iranian-oil-amid-sanctions <Snip> WASHINGTON (AP) — A dozen senators are making a bipartisan appeal to President Joe Biden to reinvigorate the power of U.S. authorities to seize Iranian oil assets under an enforcement program they say has been allowed to languish. Despite existing sanctions, Iranian oil exports jumped 35 percent last year and proceeds are being used to sponsor attacks on U.S. citizens and service members as well as allies, the senators said in a letter to the president. Brinkmanship at sea was on display Thursday when masked Iranian navy commandos seized a U.S.-bound oil tanker in the Gulf of Oman, one of several vessels it has taken as bargaining chips in negotiations with the West. Without providing evidence, Tehran said the tanker had run into an Iranian vessel. Specifically, the senators, led by Republican Joni Ernst of Iowa and Democrat Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut — both from the Armed Services Committee — complain that the Homeland Security Department's security investigations office has been constrained in seizure operations by lack of money. Since the enforcement program started in 2019, the office has seized nearly $228 million in Iranian crude and fuel oil linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S., the senators said in the letter sent this past week. But they said the office has not recently been given money that is available under the Treasury Forfeiture Fund to conduct seizures of Iranian oil. "It is unacceptable that a U.S. government program, which makes the United States and its allies safer, provides funds to remediate the victims of terrorism, and generates income for the United States in a cost-effective manner, has been allowed to languish," the letter says. The push is coming from a diverse group of senators, among them Republicans Ted Cruz of Texas and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Democrats Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Ron Wyden of Oregon. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. <End Snip> Any opinion on this?
Not really, that is politics, each Senator has their input. Whether or not the situation escalates, that is entirely up to Iran. On this I prefer to wait, others like the ones you pointed out want more immediate action. I understand their position, but I think it is still too early to make such a move, remember, we are also trying to get Iran to stop producing weapon grade nuclear material. Foreign policy should never be about only one issue.
Though I agree with your sense that this is not a simple, black and white issue, and that there are varying ways of seeing the situation, I disagree with the idea that our leadership should have the mentality of, "whatever this turns into, is completely up to the other side." Those 12 Senators, though, are pushing to make this uncertain arrangement, our new policy. It seems as if the Biden administration may be in favor of limiting how many of Iran's tankers, we commandeer. If Iran is using the proceeds from oil sales, which we have forbidden, to fund terrorism, then I see the argument of fully enforcing those sanctions. Yet, it cannot be denied that doing so would provoke Iran, and make conflict more likely. But there are a couple of points that cannot be overlooked, the first of which, being that these "sanctions," are our own U.S. imposed action, not underwritten by the U.N. (or has that changed?). So to fully enforce them, is undoubtedly our taking hostile action against Iran, for what we view as their own hostile acts. Yet, at present, our dance card is pretty full, so maybe it would be more sensible, to hold off a bit, from walking that edge. How aggressive we are, in going after Iranian oil, is very much our way of taking part in the decision, as to "whether or not the situation escalates." The good news is, thus far, as soon as our ships come to the rescue, Iran's are clearing out. The thing to be aware of, though, is that wars are not always calmly chosen, but are sometimes forced onto countries, and that this can potentially occur, due to mere accidents. Obviously, Iran cannot be allowed to disrupt the world's oil supply; but the greater the presence of the U.S. military, to protect shipping, the greater the chances for an incident occurring, between our two nations' forces. I would prefer if the naval force were more international, rather than a largely U.S. (and British) operation.
