War with Iran?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-25-2019, 09:14 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL Repeat what the article says. Then claim "no surprise."

I read it, still no surprise.  Unlike others I don't have to read the same thing multiple times prior to it sinking in.  

Quote:Had there been a Gulf confrontation under Obama, Clinton, or the Bushes, it would have been managed with an international coalition--US leadership with Britain as our foremost partners.

ONE coalition.

Maybe, likely, sure.  Definitely?  You can't say that without the particulars.  Especially as in this case in which the rest of the EU isn't wholly on the side of the UK either, as they disapprove of the UK seizing the Iranian tanker at Gibraltar. 

Quote:Now it looks like there will be two. Because GB does not want to further the US policy of economic strangulation, which greatly increases the likelihood that Iran will again disrupt oil traffic.

No, they want to keep the deal alive as a signatory.  As I already stated.  If this greatly increases the chances of Iran succeeding as a bad actor then the shame is on Iran, as the bad actor.  

Quote:So yes, this should surprise everyone, whether GB "coordinates" with the US or not.  It is a precedent--US allies working out an alternative model for maintaining international stability.

No, it's really not.  It's a certain set of circumstances that lended itself to the exact outcome we got for anyone paying attention.  It's also "ally" at this point, not "allies" as no one else has signed off on joining at this time.  In any event they need US assistance regardless as outside of the UK and France no one in the EU has any naval assets to speak of, so it's a hollow, face saving gesture.  Even those two have a minute fraction of the ability of the US Navy.

[GMDino]

Just remember, the Iranians never won a war, but never lost a negotiation!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 29, 2019

[Dill]

(07-25-2019, 10:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, they want to keep the deal alive as a signatory.  As I already stated.  If this greatly increases the chances of Iran succeeding as a bad actor then the shame is on Iran, as the bad actor.  

?? As I stated. As my article stated. right? That is one of the reasons for absence of alliance. ("They" in your statement refers to GB, right?)

Britain's actions increase the chances Iran can hold out until we get a Democratic president again.  Most people in the Gulf care about preventing an unnecessary war and/or a nuclear armed Iran, not "shame on Iran."

(07-25-2019, 10:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:

Quote:Quote:So yes, this should surprise everyone, whether GB "coordinates" with the US or not.  It is a precedent--US allies working out an alternative model for maintaining international stability.

No, it's really not.  It's a certain set of circumstances that lended itself to the exact outcome we got for anyone paying attention.  It's also "ally" at this point, not "allies" as no one else has signed off on joining at this time.  In any event they need US assistance regardless as outside of the UK and France no one in the EU has any naval assets to speak of, so it's a hollow, face saving gesture.  Even those two have a minute fraction of the ability of the US Navy.

Jeremy Hunt's proposal clearly addresses "allies." He is seeks to include Germany, Finland, Denmark and Italy, among others. Too early for them to "sign off." Italy has at least two aircraft carriers, along with minesweepers and destroyers and attack submarines. France has an aircraft carrier and several destroyers. The other countries can muster more submarines, minesweepers and other support ships. May not matter at all if this is a "minute fraction" of the ability of the US Navy.

Nothing italicized argues against my point, bolded above.

Why is the effort to keep Iran to the deal, to separate from US policy, by including fellow Europeans, a "hollow, face saving gesture"?  Why any need to "save face" on a policy consciously decided?

What about US policy would force the US' most important ally to go it alone this way? Are they just being stupid?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-30-2019, 03:07 AM)Dill Wrote: ?? As I stated. As my article stated. right? That is one of the reasons for absence of alliance. ("They" in your statement refers to GB, right?)

Britain's actions increase the chances Iran can hold out until we get a Democratic president again.  Most people in the Gulf care about preventing an unnecessary war and/or a nuclear armed Iran, not "shame on Iran."

That's how you perceive it, that doesn't make it the way it is.  I think it's rather more simple; the UK doesn't want to further ramp up tension by directly cooperating with us militarily in that region.  If Iran chooses to comport themselves in an illegal and aggressive, then yes, shame on them.  State sanctioned piracy is a rather bad look.

Quote:Jeremy Hunt's proposal clearly addresses "allies." He is seeks to include Germany, Finland, Denmark and Italy, among others.

OOooo, who will be able to stand against that mighty naval alliance?  Force projection is rather more than simply sending a warship to X spot on planet Earth.

Quote:Too early for them to "sign off." Italy has at least two aircraft carriers, along with minesweepers and destroyers and attack submarines. France has an aircraft carrier and several destroyers. The other countries can muster more submarines, minesweepers and other support ships. May not matter at all if this is a "minute fraction" of the ability of the US Navy.

France is the only nation on that list with (1) a real carrier.  Again, this is a face saving measure and for some reason you're completely buying it.

Quote:Nothing italicized argues against my point, bolded above.

Ahh, the old it's this way because I say so argument that you so often decry in others.

Quote:Why is the effort to keep Iran to the deal, to separate from US policy, by including fellow Europeans, a "hollow, face saving gesture"?  Why any need to "save face" on a policy consciously decided?

The navy alliance is a face saving gesture.  As for the deal, they still believe in it, they want it to succeed.  Our current administration feels differently.  Sometimes friends disagree.

Quote:What about US policy would force the US' most important ally to go it alone this way? Are they just being stupid?

You always ask these pedantic questions like you're being clever, it's rather obnoxious.  No one is disputing that these tensions have been largely caused by the US reimposing sanctions against Iran.  Although it is worth pointing out that the Iranian piracy was a direct response to the UK seizing an Iranian flagged tanker as that tanker was violating EU sanctions.  So, actually, the Iranian piracy is a response to something that has zero to do with the US and its reimposed sanctions.  The naval alliance, however, must certainly does.  

[Dill]

(07-30-2019, 11:05 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That's how you perceive it, that doesn't make it the way it is.  I think it's rather more simple; the UK doesn't want to further ramp up tension by directly cooperating with us militarily in that region.  If Iran chooses to comport themselves in an illegal and aggressive, then yes, shame on them.  State sanctioned piracy is a rather bad look.
OOooo, who will be able to stand against that mighty naval alliance?  Force projection is rather more than simply sending a warship to X spot on planet Earth.
France is the only nation on that list with (1) a real carrier.  Again, this is a face saving measure and for some reason you're completely buying it.

To the bolded, haven't I already said that the UK doesn't want to further ramp up tension, etc.? And the link I posted says that as well. You offer my own point up like a counter point?  Again?

There is more than "a warship" available to the Britain and the EU countries in question. And whatever force projection is, in this case it is proposed to go forward without the US. That's the point.

No, I am not "completely buying" your face saving claim. And apparently you are not going to explain why face needs to be saved and why a call for a coalition accomplishes that. 

(07-30-2019, 11:05 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:Nothing italicized argues against my point, bolded above.

Ahh, the old it's this way because I say so argument that you so often decry in others.

 
That I so often decry in your posts. And no, I'm not repeating an unsupported claim in response to a request for support. 

The point I am raising concerns the import of Britain separating from US policy in the gulf. Claiming Britain still needs assistance, true or false, does not really address the question of why the separation.

If the creation of an alternative coalition is "face saving," why the decision to implement a policy which requires face saving? Affirming that Iran is responsible for its own behavior doesn't speak to this issue at all.

(07-30-2019, 11:05 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:What about US policy would force the US' most important ally to go it alone this way? Are they just being stupid?

You always ask these pedantic questions like you're being clever, it's rather obnoxious.  No one is disputing that these tensions have been largely caused by the US reimposing sanctions against Iran.  Although it is worth pointing out that the Iranian piracy was a direct response to the UK seizing an Iranian flagged tanker as that tanker was violating EU sanctions.  So, actually, the Iranian piracy is a response to something that has zero to do with the US and its reimposed sanctions.  The naval alliance, however, must certainly does. 

If Iran seizes a ship in response to Britain seizing a ship because the US has re-imposed sanctions despite Iran holding to the Iran deal, then this "piracy," which would not have occurred were the sanctions not reimposed, does have something to do with the reimposed sanctions.

I am not the only one asking pedantic questions like I'm being clever. This distancing of Britain from the US is a subject of great interest in the foreign policy community. And I re-asked the question about that distancing to keep the discussion on the track of my original post, and away from personal judgments about my motivation and moral assessments of Iran.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-30-2019, 12:14 PM)Dill Wrote: If Iran seizes a ship in response to Britain seizing a ship because the US has re-imposed sanctions despite Iran holding to the Iran deal, then this "piracy," which would not have occurred were the sanctions not reimposed, does have something to do with the reimposed sanctions.

The UK seized a ship that was violating existing EU sanctions as it was bound for Syria.  This had nothing to do with the Iran deal and I literally pointed that out in the post you just quoted.  Please actually read what is written instead of immediately vomiting up a response as constantly reiterating the same points to you is annoying.

Quote:I am not the only one asking pedantic questions like I'm being clever. 

Well, at least you finally admitted your intent.

Quote:This distancing of Britain from the US is a subject of great interest in the foreign policy community.  And I re-asked the question about that distancing to keep the discussion on the track of my original post, and away from personal judgments about my motivation and moral assessments of Iran.

Your questions have been answered.  As usual you don't like the answer so you ask the same question apparently hoping for a different one.  I'll make it bare bones simple for you.

The UK wants to preserve the Iran deal.  They realize that direct cooperation with the US Navy would further jeopardize said deal as the US is publicly against the deal.  Hence to save face and adequately respond to Iran's state sanctioned act of piracy they are assembling a joint military mission with other nations; excluding the US intentionally so as not to further worsen chances of the Iran deal staying intact.  This is the absolutely only reason for this course of action.  The UK can do nothing and look weak(er), the UK can cooperate with the US Navy and likely destroy the Iran deal completely, or they can choose the middle road as they did.  You want to read more into it because it fits your world view of "Trump is destroying our old alliances".  In some cases this argument could be made, this is not one of them.  Kindly read this entire post before responding as I will be ignoring any question you reiterate that has already been addressed.  Thank you.

[Dill]

(07-30-2019, 12:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The UK seized a ship that was violating existing EU sanctions as it was bound for Syria.  This had nothing to do with the Iran deal and I literally pointed that out in the post you just quoted.  Please actually read what is written instead of immediately vomiting up a response as constantly reiterating the same points to you is annoying.

???
The British claimed the Iranian ship was violating EU sanctions on Syria. But the head of the EU Council on Foreign Relations says the EU does not impose EU sanctions on non members. So why seize a non EU ship? Spanish claim Britain was acting under US instructions to squeeze Iran's economy, to force it to a new Iran Deal. How would Britain defend against that charge in the UN International Court of Justice? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/20/gulf-crisis-tanker-retaliation-iran-hormuz

Not surprisingly, Iran views seizure of the tanker at Gibraltar as a violation of the JCPOA, which the EU claims it wants to uphold. And so seizes a British tanker in response to what it perceives as British Piracy. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/07/crisis-talks-iran-nuclear-deal-set-kick-vienna-190728072008700.html

So where did you "literally point out" that the Gibraltar seizure had nothing to do with the Iran Deal? This claim?

So, actually, the Iranian piracy is a response to something that has zero to do with the US and its reimposed sanctions.

That looks to be factually wrong. 

I also find your "constantly reiterating the same points" annoying. Especially when I and my sources have already made them. In the future, substitute repetition with support/evidence.

[Dill]

(07-30-2019, 12:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Your questions have been answered.  As usual you don't like the answer so you ask the same question apparently hoping for a different one.  I'll make it bare bones simple for you.

I am not simply "asking the same question." I am pointing out that you have not actually answered my questions. That is why I dislike your answers. As usual.

The current disputed started with post #352, where, working from a link discussing the US refusal to protect anyone else's shipping in the Gulf, or form a coalition to do so, I stated that "I would be interested in hearing people's thoughts on how US allies and Iran will view US paralysis," and your first "answer" was that "Iran is responsible for their own actions."  Unless you are claiming that is how Iran will view US paralysis, you are not answering the question. You are changing the subject.

In #357 I reiterate that my question is about "chains of consequences," the logic of events, not the morality of international actors regarding past events.

In post #358 I add a new link, regarding Britain's decision to form a coalition to protect shipping in default of US protection, crossing US policy to salvage the Iran deal.

Your immediate response in post #359 is "duh, The UK is  an active signatory to the Iran Deal and hopes to salvage it" (repeating the reporting from my link) and their decision "should surprise no one."   Of course it is not surprising that Britain responds to the US action by proposing its own coalition. The surprise is that they have to do this, WHY they have to do it.

Since everyone agrees the US/Britain are not working together because the US doesn't want a coalition and Britain doesn't want to be seen as part of the US policy in the Gulf because it wants to keep the Iran Deal, and Britain resolves the need for security by forming its own coalition, repeating all that doesn't explain why the separation should not be surprising or the coalition "face saving," however "bare bones" and oft repeated.

Question: How is separation between the US and Britain business as usual, unremarkable, as in not a tremendous stress on our favored ally, fissuring Middle East policy heretofore coordinated for 70 years? How will our allies view this separation and the costs it imposes on them?

Would this be your answer?

(07-30-2019, 12:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The UK wants to preserve the Iran deal.  They realize that direct cooperation with the US Navy would further jeopardize said deal as the US is publicly against the deal.  Hence to save face and adequately respond to Iran's state sanctioned act of piracy they are assembling a joint military mission with other nations; excluding the US intentionally so as not to further worsen chances of the Iran deal staying intact. This is the absolutely only reason for this course of action. The UK can do nothing and look weak(er), the UK can cooperate with the US Navy and likely destroy the Iran deal completely, or they can choose the middle road as they did

With the exception of the merely asserted "face saving" claim, this unnecessarily repeats what everyone already agrees on, without answering what was asked. Consequences? Our allies views? Britain did not propose a coalition to fill a genuine security vacuum, but to "save face" for not committing to a US policy universally condemned?  Nothing to see here folks, move along?

(07-30-2019, 12:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You want to read more into it because it fits your world view of "Trump is destroying our old alliances".  In some cases this argument could be made, this is not one of them.  Kindly read this entire post before responding as I will be ignoring any question you reiterate that has already been addressed.  Thank you.

Hmmm. No "worldview" in scattershot, off topic comments about Iran's "responsibility" and "piracy" and your Pompeoesque shrugging off of Allies' complaints? Why is this not a case in which Trump is "destroying old alliances"? Because "The UK wants to preserve the Iran deal . . . They realize that direct cooperation with the US Navy would jeopardize said deal . . . "etc.?

You can always assume that I read entire posts, and more, before commenting.  Saving face is claiming you are not going to continue answering questions with non answers.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-30-2019, 04:50 PM)Dill Wrote: I am not simply "asking the same question." I am pointing out that you have not actually answered my questions. That is why I dislike your answers. As usual.

The current disputed started with post #352, where, working from a link discussing the US refusal to protect anyone else's shipping in the Gulf, or form a coalition to do so, I stated that "I would be interested in hearing people's thoughts on how US allies and Iran will view US paralysis," and your first "answer" was that "Iran is responsible for their own actions."  Unless you are claiming that is how Iran will view US paralysis, you are not answering the question. You are changing the subject.

In #357 I reiterate that my question is about "chains of consequences," the logic of events, not the morality of international actors regarding past events.

In post #358 I add a new link, regarding Britain's decision to form a coalition to protect shipping in default of US protection, crossing US policy to salvage the Iran deal.

Your immediate response in post #359 is "duh, The UK is  an active signatory to the Iran Deal and hopes to salvage it" (repeating the reporting from my link) and their decision "should surprise no one."   Of course it is not surprising that Britain responds to the US action by proposing its own coalition. The surprise is that they have to do this, WHY they have to do it.

Since everyone agrees the US/Britain are not working together because the US doesn't want a coalition and Britain doesn't want to be seen as part of the US policy in the Gulf because it wants to keep the Iran Deal, and Britain resolves the need for security by forming its own coalition, repeating all that doesn't explain why the separation should not be surprising or the coalition "face saving," however "bare bones" and oft repeated.

Question: How is separation between the US and Britain business as usual, unremarkable, as in not a tremendous stress on our favored ally, fissuring Middle East policy heretofore coordinated for 70 years? How will our allies view this separation and the costs it imposes on them?

Would this be your answer?



With the exception of the merely asserted "face saving" claim, this unnecessarily repeats what everyone already agrees on, without answering what was asked. Consequences? Our allies views? Britain did not propose a coalition to fill a genuine security vacuum, but to "save face" for not committing to a US policy universally condemned?  Nothing to see here folks, move along?



Hmmm. No "worldview" in scattershot, off topic comments about Iran's "responsibility" and "piracy" and your Pompeoesque shrugging off of Allies' complaints? Why is this not a case in which Trump is "destroying old alliances"? Because "The UK wants to preserve the Iran deal . . . They realize that direct cooperation with the US Navy would jeopardize said deal . . . "etc.?

You can always assume that I read entire posts, and more, before commenting.  Saving face is claiming you are not going to continue answering questions with non answers.

Again a lot of the same tripe, not a single new point.  You also continue to completely ignore the fact that the tit for tat seizing of each other's ships has absolutely nothing to do with the Iran deal, at all.  Any "security vacuum" is caused by a lack of the Royal Navy's ability to protect its own shipping necessitated by Iran's state sanctioned piracy as a response to a UK seizure of an Iranian tanker violating EU sanctions over Syria.

I'm now going to save face by ignoring your response if it contains nothing new.  Feel free to claim whatever victory you choose from this.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-30-2019, 04:49 PM)Dill Wrote: ???
The British claimed the Iranian ship was violating EU sanctions on Syria. But the head of the EU Council on Foreign Relations says the EU does not impose EU sanctions on non members. So why seize a non EU ship? Spanish claim Britain was acting under US instructions to squeeze Iran's economy, to force it to a new Iran Deal. How would Britain defend against that charge in the UN International Court of Justice? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/20/gulf-crisis-tanker-retaliation-iran-hormuz

Not surprisingly, Iran views seizure of the tanker at Gibraltar as a violation of the JCPOA, which the EU claims it wants to uphold. And so seizes a British tanker in response to what it perceives as British Piracy. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/07/crisis-talks-iran-nuclear-deal-set-kick-vienna-190728072008700.html

So where did you "literally point out" that the Gibraltar seizure had nothing to do with the Iran Deal? This claim?

So, actually, the Iranian piracy is a response to something that has zero to do with the US and its reimposed sanctions.

That looks to be factually wrong.

Based on absolutely nothing in your quoted sources. 

Quote:I also find your "constantly reiterating the same points" annoying. Especially when I and my sources have already made them.  In the future, substitute repetition with support/evidence.

Cool.  Feel free to stop responding then.

[Dill]

(07-30-2019, 04:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Again a lot of the same tripe, not a single new point.  You also continue to completely ignore the fact that the tit for tat seizing of each other's ships has absolutely nothing to do with the Iran deal, at all.  Any "security vacuum" is caused by a lack of the Royal Navy's ability to protect its own shipping necessitated by Iran's state sanctioned piracy as a response to a UK seizure of an Iranian tanker violating EU sanctions over Syria.

I'm now going to save face by ignoring your response if it contains nothing new.  Feel free to claim whatever victory you choose from this.

Looks like I get the last word, summarizing the exchange over our last four posts.

You: "The UK seized a ship that was violating existing EU sanctions as it was bound for Syria.  This had nothing to do with the Iran deal and I literally pointed that out in the post you just quoted."

Me: The British claimed the Iranian ship was violating EU sanctions on Syria. But the head of the EU Council on Foreign Relations says the EU does not impose EU sanctions on non members. So why seize a non EU ship? Spanish claim Britain was acting under US instructions to squeeze Iran's economy, to force it to a new Iran Deal. 
Supporting links:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/20/gulf-crisis-tanker-retaliation-iran-hormuz
Carl Bildt, the former Swedish prime minister and co-chair of the European council on foreign relations, pinpointed the ambiguities of the British action in Gibraltar: “The legality of the UK seizure of a tanker heading for Syria with oil from Iran intrigues me. One refers to EU sanctions against Syria, but Iran is not a member of the EU. And the EU as a principle doesn’t impose its sanctions on others. That’s what the US does.”
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/07/crisis-talks-iran-nuclear-deal-set-kick-vienna-190728072008700.html
"Developments have occurred, such as the seizure of the tanker carrying Iranian oil in Gibraltar, which in our view is considered a breach of the JCPOA," Araghchi said in comments carried on Iranian state TV.
"Countries party to the JCPOA must not create any obstacles in the way of Iran exporting its oil," he added.

You: "Based on absolutely nothing in your quoted sources."   and

"Again a lot of the same tripe, not a single new point.  You also continue to completely ignore the fact that the tit for tat seizing of each other's ships has absolutely nothing to do with the Iran deal, at all."

So noting the EU does not impose its sanctions on non-EU countries is NOT a new point?  NOT in my quoted sources?

Clear enough who is ignoring what here. You brought an unloaded gun to a knife fight. No ammunition? Repeat refuted claim and counter accuse; repeat refuted claim and counter-accuse--and then insist you'll only respond if there is "something new."  

You would not have to "save face" if you didn't launch into threads making bald assertions easily refuted, and then devoting your remaining energy to dodging the refutation by dogmatic, unsupported reassertion, and claiming others are not reading carefully, "ignoring" your facts, and otherwise at fault.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-31-2019, 04:12 PM)Dill Wrote: Looks like I get the last word, summarizing the exchange over our last four posts.

You: "The UK seized a ship that was violating existing EU sanctions as it was bound for Syria.  This had nothing to do with the Iran deal and I literally pointed that out in the post you just quoted."

Me: The British claimed the Iranian ship was violating EU sanctions on Syria. But the head of the EU Council on Foreign Relations says the EU does not impose EU sanctions on non members. So why seize a non EU ship? Spanish claim Britain was acting under US instructions to squeeze Iran's economy, to force it to a new Iran Deal. 
Supporting links:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/20/gulf-crisis-tanker-retaliation-iran-hormuz
Carl Bildt, the former Swedish prime minister and co-chair of the European council on foreign relations, pinpointed the ambiguities of the British action in Gibraltar: “The legality of the UK seizure of a tanker heading for Syria with oil from Iran intrigues me. One refers to EU sanctions against Syria, but Iran is not a member of the EU. And the EU as a principle doesn’t impose its sanctions on others. That’s what the US does.”
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/07/crisis-talks-iran-nuclear-deal-set-kick-vienna-190728072008700.html
"Developments have occurred, such as the seizure of the tanker carrying Iranian oil in Gibraltar, which in our view is considered a breach of the JCPOA," Araghchi said in comments carried on Iranian state TV.
"Countries party to the JCPOA must not create any obstacles in the way of Iran exporting its oil," he added.

You: "Based on absolutely nothing in your quoted sources."   and

"Again a lot of the same tripe, not a single new point.  You also continue to completely ignore the fact that the tit for tat seizing of each other's ships has absolutely nothing to do with the Iran deal, at all."

So noting the EU does not impose its sanctions on non-EU countries is NOT a new point?  NOT in my quoted sources?

Clear enough who is ignoring what here. You brought an unloaded gun to a knife fight. No ammunition? Repeat refuted claim and counter accuse; repeat refuted claim and counter-accuse--and then insist you'll only respond if there is "something new."  

You would not have to "save face" if you didn't launch into threads making bald assertions easily refuted, and then devoting your remaining energy to dodging the refutation by dogmatic, unsupported reassertion, and claiming others are not reading carefully, "ignoring" your facts, and otherwise at fault.

Then kindly show any proof that the UK seized the tanker due to US pressure or insistence.  Until you do so I'll take the UK's word on why they acted as they did.  Keep making excused for Iran though, it's enlightening. 

I await your next obnoxiously condescending post with ill disguised anticipation.

[Dill]

(07-31-2019, 05:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Then kindly show any proof that the UK seized the tanker due to US pressure or insistence.  Until you do so I'll take the UK's word on why they acted as they did.  Keep making excused for Iran though, it's enlightening. 

I await your next obnoxiously condescending post with ill disguised anticipation.

Pro-tip: worry less about condescension and refuting world views and follow closely the relation of statements to support.

Support for my claim that the British seizure of the Iranian tanker at Gibraltar IS related to (i.e., a consequence of) the US trashing of the Iran Deal.

1. Tanker detained by Gibraltar on U.S. request to Britain, Spain says
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-iran-tanker-spain-idUSKCN1TZ0ZT
MADRID (Reuters) - Gibraltar detained the supertanker Grace 1 after a request by the United States to Britain, acting Spanish Foreign Minister Josep Borrell said on Thursday.
Spain was looking into the seizure of the ship, suspected of carrying crude oil to Syria, and how it may affect Spanish sovereignty as it appears to have happened in Spanish waters, Borrell said

2. John Bolton, applauding the seizure, linked it to US efforts to cut off Iranian trade. Nothing about EU sanctions.
https://twitter.com/AmbJohnBolton/status/1146877026751647756?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1146877026751647756&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.france24.com%2Fen%2F20190704-iran-us-uk-syria-sanctions-seizure-iranian-oil-tanker

3. As stated in my previous post, the co-chair of the EU Council on Foreign Relations says the EU does not impose EU sanctions on non-EU nations. Iran is not an EU nation.  This undermines any claim that the seizure was about EU sanctions. Let's add this to that:
http://theconversation.com/eu-silence-over-british-seizure-of-iranian-tanker-is-a-telling-glimpse-of-post-brexit-future-120437

Acting upon intelligence that Iranian oil was being shipped to Syria, the chief minister of Gibraltar, Fabian Picardo, requested help from the Royal Marines to seize the tanker. Picardo explained that Gibraltar was simply upholding sanctions laid down by the EU against the Syrian government by preventing a shipment of 2.1m barrels of light crude oil to one of its refineries. According to the British, once refined, it could have fuelled the regime’s tanks, armoured cars and troop carriers that operate alongside Russian forces currently waging havoc in Syria’s Hama region.

Despite this, there was no statement from the office of the European External Action Service, the EU body responsible for conducting the bloc’s foreign and security policy. Not a word of gratitude. Not even a nod. This was a deliberate and strategic use of silence. . . .

There was one tiny chink in the wall of EU silence that greeted news that the tanker had been seized. The European Council candidate to become the EU’s next foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, is an outspoken and often truculent Spanish politician. Unhappy in the first instance about the insensitive use of Gibraltar’s territorial waters, which Spain does not recognise, Borrell’s other preoccupation is European relations with Iran. In his role as Spain’s foreign minister he told media that the tanker had been seized following “a request from the United States to the United Kingdom”. He insinuated that the Americans had first offered the intelligence to Spain.

These points could be put in question by evidence that the EU regularly seizes assets of non-EU nations going to Syria. Still, you are left with the fact that both the Iranians and Bolton connect this event to a sanction regime re-activated in the wake of US trashing of the Iran Deal.  Were that deal still intact, there is no reason to believe the tanker would have been seized at Gibraltar, EU sanctions or not. 

Final point, if an effort to sort out what is actually going on with these seizures, what purpose drives them, is cast as "making excuses for Iran," then this frames out any disinterested effort to follow the logic of events. All analysis is implicitly presumed to be in service of supporting or attacking Iran.  That is, in effect, a requirement that analysis be biased in favor of one party or the other. Comments about my "excuses" for Iran, like my excuses for China in an earlier thread, are a kind of policing. They are complaints about absence of bias, absence of the right kind of bias.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-31-2019, 05:54 PM)Dill Wrote: Pro-tip: worry less about condescension and refuting world views and follow closely the relation of statements to support.

Ugh, pro cringe. 

Quote:Support for my claim that the British seizure of the Iranian tanker at Gibraltar IS related to (i.e., a consequence of) the US trashing of the Iran Deal.

Cool, lets see it.

Quote:1. Tanker detained by Gibraltar on U.S. request to Britain, Spain says
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-iran-tanker-spain-idUSKCN1TZ0ZT
MADRID (Reuters) - Gibraltar detained the supertanker Grace 1 after a request by the United States to Britain, acting Spanish Foreign Minister Josep Borrell said on Thursday.
Spain was looking into the seizure of the ship, suspected of carrying crude oil to Syria, and how it may affect Spanish sovereignty as it appears to have happened in Spanish waters, Borrell said

So, Spain says it was at the behest of the US and the UK says it was not.  Your article has zero corroboration or proof other than the fact Spain made the claim.  Weak source, I'm surprised you even used it.  There's zero substance to this claim.

Quote:2. John Bolton, applauding the seizure, linked it to US efforts to cut off Iranian trade. Nothing about EU sanctions.
https://twitter.com/AmbJohnBolton/status/1146877026751647756?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1146877026751647756&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.france24.com%2Fen%2F20190704-iran-us-uk-syria-sanctions-seizure-iranian-oil-tanker

Bolton hates the Iranian regime.  If a guy pissed in the Ayatollah's corn flakes Bolton would tweet in support of it.  He also points out that this was related to the ship being bound for Syria, as I said.  Again, not a shred of evidence in this source that the UK acted at the behest of the US in this instance.  You're literally 0-2 here.

Quote:3. As stated in my previous post, the co-chair of the EU Council on Foreign Relations says the EU does not impose EU sanctions on non-EU nations. Iran is not an EU nation.  This undermines any claim that the seizure was about EU sanctions. Let's add this to that:
http://theconversation.com/eu-silence-over-british-seizure-of-iranian-tanker-is-a-telling-glimpse-of-post-brexit-future-120437

The underlined is demonstrably false.

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2019/05/17/syria-eu-renews-sanctions-against-the-regime-by-one-year/

"More broadly, sanctions currently in place against Syria include an oil embargo, restrictions on certain investments, a freeze of the assets of the Syrian central bank held in the EU, export restrictions on equipment and technology that might be used for internal repression as well as on equipment and technology for the monitoring or interception of internet or telephone communications."

You literally made a demonstrably false statement.  Knowing you you'll probably find a weasel loophole, but you just got caught making a false statement to bolster your argument.

Quote:Acting upon intelligence that Iranian oil was being shipped to Syria, the chief minister of Gibraltar, Fabian Picardo, requested help from the Royal Marines to seize the tanker. Picardo explained that Gibraltar was simply upholding sanctions laid down by the EU against the Syrian government by preventing a shipment of 2.1m barrels of light crude oil to one of its refineries. According to the British, once refined, it could have fuelled the regime’s tanks, armoured cars and troop carriers that operate alongside Russian forces currently waging havoc in Syria’s Hama region.

Despite this, there was no statement from the office of the European External Action Service, the EU body responsible for conducting the bloc’s foreign and security policy. Not a word of gratitude. Not even a nod. This was a deliberate and strategic use of silence. . . .

So the UK says it was and no one else said it wasn't  Let's see what comes next.

Quote:There was one tiny chink in the wall of EU silence that greeted news that the tanker had been seized. The European Council candidate to become the EU’s next foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, is an outspoken and often truculent Spanish politician. Unhappy in the first instance about the insensitive use of Gibraltar’s territorial waters, which Spain does not recognise, Borrell’s other preoccupation is European relations with Iran. In his role as Spain’s foreign minister he told media that the tanker had been seized following “a request from the United States to the United Kingdom”. He insinuated that the Americans had first offered the intelligence to Spain.

Ohhhhh, he "insinuated"!!!!!!!  That's iron clad proof right there!  Of course he's also known for being truculent about UK claims on Gibraltar's waters, so he has no ax to grind here at all.  Seriously, you're crushing me with your fact based logical argument here.

Quote:These points could be put in question by evidence that the EU regularly seizes assets of non-EU nations going to Syria. Still, you are left with the fact that both the Iranians and Bolton connect this event to a sanction regime re-activated in the wake of US trashing of the Iran Deal.  Were that deal still intact, there is no reason to believe the tanker would have been seized at Gibraltar, EU sanctions or not. 

So the Iran deal is directly connected to sanctions against Syria, which I have shown above to be in place by the EU?  Source please. 

You have not shown, at all, that Bolton connected this to the UK enforcing US actions against Iran, only that he celebrated the seizure.

Quote:Final point, if an effort to sort out what is actually going on with these seizures, what purpose drives them, is cast as "making excuses for Iran," then this frames out any disinterested effort to follow the logic of events. All analysis is implicitly presumed to be in service of supporting or attacking Iran.  That is, in effect, a requirement that analysis be biased in favor of one party or the other. Comments about my "excuses" for Iran, like my excuses for China in an earlier thread, are a kind of policing. They are complaints about absence of bias, absence of the right kind of bias.

You have a Tucker Carlson style history of defending vile regimes.  You're previously informed us that we can infer from a person's history.  Regardless, I have demonstrably disproved your claims about your sources.  You made claims that were not true (I'll abstain from using the term lying), you inferred and claimed your inferences are fact.  You've made a weak argument constructed of assumption and inaccuracy.  Feel free to obfuscate and claim otherwise.  I could make a lame analogy about bringing a knife to a gum fight.  Instead I'll simply say, try harder.

[Dill]

(08-01-2019, 12:36 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 3. As stated in my previous post, the co-chair of the EU Council on Foreign Relations says the EU does not impose EU sanctions on non-EU nations. Iran is not an EU nation.  This undermines any claim that the seizure was about EU sanctions. Let's add this to that:
The underlined is demonstrably false.
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2019/05/17/syria-eu-renews-sanctions-against-the-regime-by-one-year/
"More broadly, sanctions currently in place against Syria include an oil embargo, restrictions on certain investments, a freeze of the assets of the Syrian central bank held in the EU, export restrictions on equipment and technology that might be used for internal repression as well as on equipment and technology for the monitoring or interception of internet or telephone communications."
You literally made a demonstrably false statement.  Knowing you you'll probably find a weasel loophole, but you just got caught making a false statement to bolster your argument.

Re: following closely the relation of statements to support, I only have time to respond to this point at the moment.

I quoted the Co-Chair of the EU Council of Foreign Relations stating, in reference to sanctions on Syria and the seizure of the Iranian ship, that the EU does not enforce its sanctions on non-Eu countries.  If the EU does not enforce its Syrian sanctions on non-EU nations, then the reason given for the seizure by Britain and Gibraltar does not fit--though it does align with the US goal of preventing Iran from selling oil anywhere. I.e., it aligns with the enforcement of US, not EU policy.

You claim the bolded regarding enforcement of EU Syrian sanctions on non-EU countries is "demonstrably false." That leads me to expect you have evidence that the EU routinely, as a matter of policy, impounds sanctioned cargo on ships from non-EU countries or some such. 

But you only provide a link to a quote that the EU "sanctions currently in place include an oil embargo."

This looks like "proof" of what no one is disputing--i.e., that there are EU sanctions in place on Syria. Not proof that I made a "demonstrably false statement" by quoting an EU official on EU policy. Happily, you "abstain" from calling me a liar.

So my "weasel loophole" would be that while my quote of an EU official stating EU policy NOT to enforce EU sanctions on Syria on non-EU nations does call into question the "official" British explanation of actions that align with US , not EU policy, your "proof" that EU sanctions on Syria "include oil" does not even address, much less refute, my (and Bildt's) point.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-01-2019, 11:56 AM)Dill Wrote: Re: following closely the relation of statements to support, I only have time to respond to this point at the moment.

I quoted the Co-Chair of the EU Council of Foreign Relations stating, in reference to sanctions on Syria and the seizure of the Iranian ship, that the EU does not enforce its sanctions on non-Eu countries.  If the EU does not enforce its Syrian sanctions on non-EU nations, then the reason given for the seizure by Britain and Gibraltar does not fit--though it does align with the US goal of preventing Iran from selling oil anywhere. I.e., it aligns with the enforcement of US, not EU policy.

You claim the bolded regarding enforcement of EU Syrian sanctions on non-EU countries is "demonstrably false." That leads me to expect you have evidence that the EU routinely, as a matter of policy, impounds sanctioned cargo on ships from non-EU countries or some such. 

But you only provide a link to a quote that the EU "sanctions currently in place include an oil embargo."

This looks like "proof" of what no one is disputing--i.e., that there are EU sanctions in place on Syria. Not proof that I made a "demonstrably false statement" by quoting an EU official on EU policy. Happily, you "abstain" from calling me a liar.

So my "weasel loophole" would be that while my quote of an EU official stating EU policy NOT to enforce EU sanctions on Syria on non-EU nations does call into question the "official" British explanation of actions that align with US , not EU policy, your "proof" that EU sanctions on Syria "include oil" does not even address, much less refute, my (and Bildt's) point.

As expected, weaseling out of it.  If you want to have a semantic argument about how EU sanctions are imposed then I'm not really interested.  You claimed the UE does not sanction non-EU members.  This is demonstrably false.  I know your weasel attempt is to now claim they don't "actively" impose sanctions, but as that's not what you said that's not what is being addressed.

All of this is window dressing on your poorly constructed argument that is based on nothing but supposition.  You have zero solid proof that the UK acted on behest of the US and, of importance, this directly contradicts your initial point which is that the UK doesn't want to partner with the US because of the damage it would do to the Iran deal.  So which is it, does the UK want to help, and act on the behest of, the US?  Or do they want to shun US assistance and partnership as they hope to save the Iran deal?  Maybe you think they're trying to play both sides?  It'd be interesting if you actually picked a position and stuck with it, then I wouldn't have to ask these questions.

[Dill]

(08-01-2019, 12:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As expected, weaseling out of it.  If you want to have a semantic argument about how EU sanctions are imposed then I'm not really interested.  You claimed the UE does not sanction non-EU members.  This is demonstrably false.  I know your weasel attempt is to now claim they don't "actively" impose sanctions, but as that's not what you said that's not what is being addressed.
All of this is window dressing on your poorly constructed argument that is based on nothing but supposition.  You have zero solid proof that the UK acted on behest of the US and, of importance, this directly contradicts your initial point which is that the UK doesn't want to partner with the US because of the damage it would do to the Iran deal.  So which is it, does the UK want to help, and act on the behest of, the US?  Or do they want to shun US assistance and partnership as they hope to save the Iran deal?  Maybe you think they're trying to play both sides?  It'd be interesting if you actually picked a position and stuck with it, then I wouldn't have to ask these questions.

No. The EU has all along been "actively" imposing sanctions on Syria--through EU members. But it has not been "actively" requiring non EU countries not the target of Syrian sanctions to adhere to EU sanctions.

For the 3rd time, I quote an EU official, speaking in official capacity, stating that the EU does not enforce EU sanctions on non-members. Here are his words. Again.

"One refers to EU sanctions against Syria, but Iran is not a member of the EU. And the EU as a principle doesn’t impose its sanctions on others. That’s what the US does.”

The point of the bolded is that while the EU would require EU members like France or Denmark or Poland to honor EU sanctions on Syria, it would NOT force non-EU countries like Panama or Brazil or China, not themselves targets of sanction, to adhere to EU sanction policy.  "That's what the US does," not the EU.

If this is NOT a claim that the EU does not enforce EU policies on countries which do not belong to the EU, and are not themselves the target of Syrian sanctions, then why point out that "Iran is not a member of the EU"?

You take Bildt to claim the EU does not impose sanctions on ANY non-EU countries--like Syria--in the same sentence he references EU sanctions imposed on Syria. That would be quite a contradiction. "Demonstrably false," as you put it.

But it is a "falsehood" no one is bothering to demonstrate--but you. And why would anyone, if the rest of the world understands Bildt's point is not that the EU does not impose sanctions on ANY non-EU nations, but rather that the EU does not police non-EU nations' shipping to insure they are respecting EU sanctions on Syria.

Which means that Britain and Gibraltar were not following EU policy when they seized an Iranian tanker flying a Panamanian flag, while claiming they were enforcing EU sanctions.

[*bfine32*]

Let me make sure I understand the facts of Dill's/SSF's latest squabble:

The US has offered to escort ships through the strait after the British ship was seized

European Nation have refused

Britain proposed a separate European escort program after their ship was siezed

European Nations have refused

Do I have the basic facts straight?

[Dill]

(08-01-2019, 12:36 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote: These points could be put in question by evidence that the EU regularly seizes assets of non-EU nations going to Syria. Still, you are left with the fact that both the Iranians and Bolton connect this event to a sanction regime re-activated in the wake of US trashing of the Iran Deal.  Were that deal still intact, there is no reason to believe the tanker would have been seized at Gibraltar, EU sanctions or not.

So the Iran deal is directly connected to sanctions against Syria, which I have shown above to be in place by the EU?  Source please. 
You have not shown, at all, that Bolton connected this to the UK enforcing US actions against Iran, only that he celebrated the seizure.

Nothing in my post states or implies that "the Iran deal is connected to sanctions against Syria."  So I don't need to source a claim I did not make.

The seizure of the Grace I, under pretext of enforcing Syrian sanctions, is a consequence of US efforts to collapse Iran's economy in wake of the trashed Iran Deal, to pressure it to come to the table for a new deal.

Looks like you could use a little more evidence of the Bolton connection, as well as another clear statement that Britain was not empowered to enforce EU sanctions by seizing the Iranian tanker.

"Did John Bolton Light the Fuse of the UK-Iranian Tanker Crisis? Evidence suggests he pressured the Brits to seize an Iranian ship. Why? More war."  https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/did-john-bolton-light-the-fuse-of-the-uk-iranian-tanker-crisis/

The rationale for detaining the Iranian vessel and its crew was that it was delivering oil to Syria in violation of EU sanctions. This was never questioned by Western news media. But a closer look reveals that the UK had no legal right to enforce those sanctions against that ship, and that it was a blatant violation of the clearly defined global rules that govern the passage of merchant ships through international straits. 

The evidence also reveals that Bolton was actively involved in targeting the Grace 1 from the time it began its journey in May as part of the broader Trump administration campaign of “maximum pressure” on Iran.

Contrary to the official rationale, the detention of the Iranian tanker was not consistent with the 2012 EU regulation on sanctions against the Assad government in Syria. The EU Council regulation in question specifies in Article 35 that the sanctions were to apply only within the territory of EU member states, to a national or business entity or onboard an aircraft or vessel “under the jurisdiction of a member state.”
.....
Detailed evidence of Bolton’s deep involvement in the British plan to seize the Iranian tanker has surfaced in reporting on the withdrawal of Panamanian flag status for the Grace 1.

Panama was the flag state for many of the Iranian-owned vessels carrying various items exported by Iran. But when the Trump administration reinstated economic sanctions against Iran in October 2018, it included prohibitions on industry services such as insurance and reinsurance. This decision was accompanied by political pressure on Panama to withdraw Panamanian flag status from 59 Iranian vessels, many of which were owned by Iranian state-affiliated companies. Without such flag status, the Iranian-owned vessels could not get insurance for shipments by freighter. 

That move was aimed at discouraging ports, canal operators, and private firms from allowing Iranian tankers to use their facilities. The State Department’s Brian Hook, who is in charge of the sanctions, warned those entities last November that the Trump administration believed they would be responsible for the costs of an accident involving a self-insured Iranian tanker.

But the Grace 1 was special case, because it still had Panamanian flag status when it began its long journey around the Southern tip of Africa on the way to the Mediterranean. That trip began in late May, according to Automatic Identification System data cited by Riviera Maritime Media. It was no coincidence that the Panamanian Maritime Authority delisted the Grace 1 on May 29—just as the ship was beginning its journey. That decision came immediately after Panama’s National Security Council issued an alert claiming that the Iranian-owned tanker “may be participating in terrorism financing in supporting the destabilization activities of some regimes led by terrorist groups.”

Can we trust the "far left" Guardian?

How Trump’s arch-hawk lured Britain into a dangerous trap to punish Iran
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/20/britain-lured-into-deadly-trap-on-iran-by-trump-hawk-john-bolton

So when Bolton heard British Royal Marines had seized an Iranian oil tanker off Gibraltar on America’s Independence Day, [url=https://twitter.com/AmbJohnBolton/status/1146877026751647756?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Ftheconversation.com%2Feu-silence-over-british-seizure-of-iranian-tanker-is-a-telling-glimpse-of-post-brexit-future-120437]his joy was unconfined. “Excellent news: UK has detained the supertanker Grace I laden with Iranian oil bound for Syria in violation of EU sanctions,” he exulted on Twitter.

Bolton’s delighted reaction suggested the seizure was a surprise. But accumulating evidence suggests the opposite is true, and that Bolton’s national security team was directly involved in manufacturing the Gibraltar incident. The suspicion is that Conservative politicians, distracted by picking a new prime minister, jockeying for power, and preoccupied with Brexit, stumbled into an American trap.
 
In short, it seems, Britain was set up.....

The Spanish newspaper, El Pais, citing official sources, takes up the story: “The Grace 1, which flies a Panamanian flag, had been under surveillance by US satellites since April, when it was anchored off Iran. The supertanker, full to the brim with crude oil, was too big for the Suez Canal, and so it sailed around the Cape of Good Hope before heading for the Mediterranean.

“According to the US intelligence services, it was headed for the Syrian oil refinery of Banias. Washington advised Madrid of the arrival of the supertanker 48 hours ahead of time, and the Spanish navy followed its passage through the Strait of Gibraltar. It was expected to cross via international waters, as many Iranian vessels do without being stopped.”

Although Spanish officials, speaking after the event, said they would have intercepted the ship “if we had had the information and the opportunity”, Spain took no action at the time. But Bolton, in any case, was not relying on Madrid. The US had already tipped off Britain. On 4 July, after Grace I entered British-Gibraltar territorial waters, the fateful order was issued in London – it is not known by whom – and 30 marines stormed aboard.

[Dill]

(08-01-2019, 06:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let me make sure I understand the facts of Dill's/SSF's latest squabble:

The US has offered to escort ships through the strait after the British ship was seized
European Nation have refused
Britain proposed a separate European escort program after their ship was siezed
European Nations have refused
Do I have the basic facts straight?

The NYT has a good recap of your recap. European nations have not responded to Britain's coalition proposal yet. Firm "no" to the US, though. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/01/world/europe/trump-iran-gulf-patrol.html

SSF and I are not squabbling over your facts, but their interpretation and import.

In post #352, in response to Trump's refusal to aid Britain after its tanker was seized, I asked

"I would be interested in hearing people's thoughts on how US allies and Iran will view US paralysis. If allies and other nations all now have to spend money beefing up defenses to defend tankers, won't they see this as largely the result of Trump trashing the Iran deal? Will they blame Trump or Iran primarily?"

In posts #358 and 360, I view this separation of Britain (and European allies) from the US on a matter of cooperative security as a remarkable development and would invite those following the thread to consider whether it is a precedent of things to come, e.g., diminished effectiveness of US diplomacy, usually exercised through alliances. What further consequences may be likely?

The squabbles between us concerned, first, whether asserting Iran is "responsible for its own behavior" answers the questions I have posed (I say no), second, a long digression over whether he is "refuting" my points by merely repeating my premises as if they were his own (I say no) while claiming "nothing to see here," and now, whether the seizure of the Grace 1 tanker off Gibraltar has anything to do with the trashed Iran Deal.  He says no. The last three posts I have been explaining why the EU does not seize non-EU ships to enforce EU sanctions on Syria. He thinks I was saying that the EU does not impose sanctions on non-EU nations, and refuted that with a flourish, since obviously there are EU sanctions on Syria, and it is a non-EU nation.

That's our squabble in a nutshell.