world

Iran says it has confiscated British tanker in Strait of Hormuz

59 Comments
By Atta KENARE

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2019 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

59 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

Thanks for unnecessarily exacerbating the situation, Donny. All because you are racist and obsessed with Obama.

2 ( +11 / -9 )

Well let's see who's seized tanker is bigger. And who's God is bigger. It's the only way to solve this.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

tit for tat.

fair enough.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

Thanks for unnecessarily exacerbating the situation, Donny. All because you are racist and obsessed with Obama.

This is Iran showing their true colors. Their government is a threat to the region whether people want to admit it or not.

-11 ( +5 / -16 )

Their government is a threat to the region .

As is Saudi Arabia's. Let the Gulf nations fight their own battles.

Or let the oil corporations create their own militaries to fight for their interests. But then come to think of it, maybe in the case of the US, they already have.

11 ( +14 / -3 )

This is Iran showing their true colors. Their government is a threat to the region whether people want to admit it or not.

Is that why these kind of actions by Iran were not nearly as frequent before Donny ripped up the nuclear deal and started choking Iran's economy?

6 ( +10 / -4 )

The tanker "was led to the shore and handed over to the organisation to go through the legal procedure and required investigations," it said.

Obviously legal procedure was not followed, they have a right to stop the tanker and assure the correct procedure is followed, this is only right no matter what country is involved

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Is that why these kind of actions by Iran were not nearly as frequent before Donny ripped up the nuclear deal and started choking Iran's economy?

Because they were getting what they wanted. Just like North Korea, don't give them what they want and they start throwing temper tantrums.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

Their government is a threat to the region

Only to the antidemocratic dictatorships and the Apartheid regime.

Indeed, that America (and others) feel threatened by Iran's support for democracy movements and democratic countries should be an embarrassment to the US. That it isn't is a mark of ignorance, arrogance, and corruption.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

Trump's sanctions are working.

-10 ( +3 / -13 )

Because they were getting what they wanted. Just like North Korea, don't give them what they want and they start throwing temper tantrums.

Because they were getting what they deserved, which is what how many countries agreed to in exchange for severe, verifiable limits on Iran's nuclear program?

6 ( +8 / -2 )

So explain why Iran broke the deal with all the other countries. 

Let me get my crayons out first . . . The US was threatening to sanctio the other countries if they continued to do business with Iran. Iran saw the writing in the wall. Wow! That was tough. I'm tired from thinking so much.

Iran seized a UK tanker because Trump is racist, that’s a new one. And just as wrong as most of the nonsense here. 

Donny scrapping the nuclear deal and choking Iran's economy directly led to the tanker being seized. Whew! I need a rest after using all that intellectual trial capacity.

So let me guess, Trump is expected to get involved to get the tanker released too?

Hopefully not. Everything Donny touches turns into a turd.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

@PTownsendToday 07:20 am JST

Their government is a threat to the region .

As is Saudi Arabia's. Let the Gulf nations fight their own battles.

Or let the oil corporations create their own militaries to fight for their interests. But then come to think of it, maybe in the case of the US, they already have.

Agreed but letting them fight their own battles aint good for business (millitary i.c.)

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Iran... sending a very strong message that they can and will disrupt the flow of oil and the world economy..... Nobody really wants a war with Iran.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Iran is just making mistake after mistake and with each one from being observed to confiscating the bombs they put on tankers to trying to take a tanker hostage is just showing their true intentions and as bad as the Deal was that was handed down from the previous administration doesn’t mean that Iran in taking this action will get its way, they won’t, Not now and never at this point.

-11 ( +2 / -13 )

Iran is just making mistake after mistake and with each one from being observed to confiscating the bombs they put on tankers to trying to take a tanker hostage is just showing their true intentions and as bad as the Deal was that was handed down from the previous administration doesn’t mean that Iran in taking this action will get its way, they won’t, Not now and never at this point.

Odd how you are blaming Iran for reacting to Donny ripping up the deal with nothing in place and no idea what to do and then choking Iran's economy.

Funny how Iran wasn't acting out like this or enriching this much uranium to this high of level under the deal that you constantly disparage.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Thanks for unnecessarily exacerbating the situation, Donny. All because you are racist and obsessed with Obama.

Oh purleeze! Get off this bandwagon of blaming Trump for everything! Or do you believe that Iran is a nice regime and Obama did nothing wrong? Yeah, you probably do.

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

@chip star, funny how Iran was blatantly ignoring the deal set in place by producing over their agreed weight, and how Obama gave them a billion dollars. Or has your liberal mind chosen to forget the facts, again!

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

Trump brought us from a deal to the current situation. He's hets to own it.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Obama didn't give Iran money. He returned Iranian money paid for America weapons before 1979, plus agreed interest on the money. Total was $1.7 billion. It was always Iranian money.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

We’ve yet to hear the other side of the story. Was the ship really in Iranian waters? What international rules was the ship breaking? Hearsay. Definitely a tit for tat.

BTW, I’m going solar.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Iranian money we had no moral obligation to give back knowing it would be used for nuclear weapons and terrorism. We had kept it since 1979 why was Obama insistent to give it back in cash right before the deal he need for political purposes?

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

America were obligated to return the Iran money until it had decided to steal the money. Money paid even before the Iran revolution.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

No obligation to give money to people to terrorize the world. Could have repaid them in goods not cash.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

What a country does with its money is their decision and not America although America has financed terrorism many times too. Like CIA lead coups in South America against elected government. Like the Bay of Pigs. There's a long list. Even supply Bin Laden and Saddam with weapons. The America weapons sold to Saudi and the UAE end up in the hands of terrorists.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

President Donald Trump insisted Friday that the American military had downed an Iranian drone that was threatening a U.S. naval vessel in the strategic Strait of Hormuz, which Tehran denied.

Tough to decide who to believe here.

A totalitarian regime using religious fervor and irrational hatred of their adversary to gin up support among their citizens who would rather shake off the oppressive dictates of the regime and rejoin the global community... 

or Iran.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Today's lesson for the US and UK, from the Bible so many of them profess to believe in.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (Luke 6:31)

And from the real world - Do not do unto others what is all too easy for them to do back to you.

Like impounding oil tankers in Gibraltar.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

Things were much better under Obama. No enrichment and no incidents like these.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

So, the Brits seized an Iranian tanker last week for allegedly trying to smuggle oil into Syria. Iran then told the Brits straight up that they intended to respond in kind the first chance they got.

The question becomes why was the UK not escorting their flagged vessels?

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

Things were much better under Obama. No enrichment and no incidents like these.

That’s because Obama’s incidents occurred in Syria.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Iranian money we had no moral obligation to give back knowing it would be used for nuclear weapons and terrorism. We had kept it since 1979 why was Obama insistent to give it back in cash right before the deal he need for political purposes?

Bingo!

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

SuperLibToday  10:33 am JST

Things were much better under Obama. . . no incidents like these.

Those U.S. Navy sailors who were taken hostage by Iran under Obama's watch would beg to differ.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

Jeez, why do Americans have to make everything about Trump and Obama. The British illegally kidnapped an Iranian ship. The Iranians replied in kind. End of story.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

The Swedish owners of the Stena Impero said the vessel had come under "attack" in the Strait of Hormuz.

Stena Bulk and Northern Marine Management said in a statement that it "can confirm that... our managed vessel Stena Impero was attacked by unidentified small crafts and a helicopter while transiting the Strait of Hormuz while the vessel was in international waters".

"We are presently unable to contact the vessel which is now tracking as heading north towards Iran," it said.

It appears that the "peaceful" Iranians have now attacked six tankers with limpet mines, shot down a U.S. drone, attempted to hijack one tanker, threatened a U.S. warship with toy drone, and have hijacked two tankers. All in the name of "peace"?

The Obama-Kerry deal with Iran would only have lasted ten years at which point Iran was free to continue its quest to develop nuclear weapons.

And just where is Obama? Where is he hiding? He hasn't even sent a spokesmodel to speak for him.

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

Tit for tat, except that the US is the one that placed crippling embargoes on Iran for having the same weapons that a bunch of nations around the globe do (coincidentally, the US has the most and is the only nation to have ever used them as a weapon...).

Or let the oil corporations create their own militaries to fight for their interests. But then come to think of it, maybe in the case of the US, they already have.

This! The US way if pushing nations into war are so transparent these days. The US government has turned its country into a rogue state.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

One thing is clear. Had the British not seized the Iranian Tanker, then Iran would not have seized the British tanker in retaliation.

Iran is responding to others actions. The US in doing its utmost to stop Iranian oil exports, without just cause and illegally imo. British seizing their (Iran's) tanker going about its legal business.

It is easy to paint Iran as the bad guy but they are not initiating the problems, others are.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

It appears that the "peaceful" Iranians have now attacked six tankers with limpet mines

Any proof of that?

shot down a U.S. drone

Interested to know whose airspace this death machine was in...

threatened a U.S. warship with toy drone, 

Wow! Must have been terrifying...

and have hijacked two tankers. All in the name of "peace"?

The tanker broke Iranian law in Iranian waters. Hence the boarding and processing of the ship that they then sent on it's way. Any developed nation would do the same.

Iran is not allowed to enforce its own laws? It's a sovereign nation, not a cash cow in a gimp mask for Team 'Merica!

5 ( +7 / -2 )

"The Swedish owners of the Stena Impero said the vessel had come under "attack" in the Strait of Hormuz."

Under "attack"? Same has the British did to the Iranian vessel! When the British do it its "detention of an Iranian tanker" but if Iran does it its an "attack".

4 ( +7 / -3 )

PTownsendToday 07:20 am JST

Their government is a threat to the region .

As is Saudi Arabia's. Let the Gulf nations fight their own battles.

Or let the oil corporations create their own militaries to fight for their interests. But then come to think of it, maybe in the case of the US, they already have.

Good point, let the Middle Eastern Countries fight it out amongst themselves - if the money spent fighting the wars in Iraq, Libya and Syria was spent on better things such as finding and developing other oil supplies, or technology to reduce the worlds reliance on Middle Eastern Oil.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

No surprise there; the UK government is already whining about the need to protect freedom of navigation. It's a pity the UK government didn't apply those same freedoms to the Iranian vessel they seized. They still haven't explained why EU sanctions should apply to trade between Iran and Syria.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Trump is not a racist by the way. No racist would let their daughter convert to become a Jew nor marry one.

I am glad he is sitting back and not bombing Iran.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Could somebody that understands 12 dimensional Trump Tiddlywinks explain to me what the endgame is here?

It sure seems like war...

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Trump is not a racist by the way. No racist would let their daughter convert to become a Jew nor marry one.

You're applying logic and reason to racism, which is an exercise in futility.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Could somebody that understands 12 dimensional Trump Tiddlywinks explain to me what the endgame is here?

It sure seems like war...

But it’s not, not yet at least and if it does happen, rest assured, they’ll be no boots on the ground. With the hardware we have, it’ll be enough to ultimately reach the overall objection, just Washington needs to stay out and let the military do what it does and the Washington establishment bureaucrats do what they do....which isn’t much

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

If Iran takes a page from Kim's N. Korean playbook, the Iranians will build a pile of nukes and then enter negotiations with the U.S. Why settle for less when you can have much more than before?

Thanks goes to Pres. Trump.

Give up something (the Obama deal) which was better for (the Trump deal) much less.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

No racist would let their daughter convert to become a Jew nor marry one.

Low standards. So using that standard, a white male married to a Japanese (i.e. people who are considered to be 'Asian', what some say is one of the 'races', as opposed to Jewish, which some argue is not a separate race) woman, a man who blatantly discriminates against Africans or other not from his own 'race' would not be racist.

Why is the above part of her post allowed to be 'on topic'.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

This is Iran showing their true colors. Their government is a threat to the region whether people want to admit it or not.

Is that why these kind of actions by Iran were not nearly as frequent before Donny ripped up the nuclear deal and started choking Iran's economy?

These kind of actions should not be happening at all, no matter who the President of the USA is. (I assume that when the commentator write's "Donny", he/she does mean President Trump).

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

These kind of actions should not be happening at all, no matter who the President of the USA is. (I assume that when the commentator write's "Donny", he/she does mean President Trump).

Agreed. That, however, does not change the fact that Iran was not doing these things until Donny ripped up the nuclear deal and started choking Iran's economy.

Do you expect Iran to sit back and nothing in response to Donny trying to punish it for have no abided by the agreement?

You didn't have to assume I was talking about Trump because Donny is an extremely common nickname for Donald.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

UK should had seen this coming with Iran harassing ships for weeks

4 ( +5 / -1 )

UK should had seen this coming with Iran harassing ships for weeks

Exactly. Dropped the ball.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

No obligation to give money to people to terrorize the world. Could have repaid them in goods not cash.

Do you mean like the billions of AMERICAN tax payer dollars the US gives to Israel?

Things were much better under Obama. No enrichment and no incidents like these.

That’s because Obama’s incidents occurred in Syria.

...and Libya.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Here's the deal... rabidly pro-Israel billionaires Sheldon and Miriam Adelson pumped tens of millions of dollars into the campaign coffers of Trump and other GOP candidates during 2016 campaign. The quid pro quo was that, in exchange for the cash, the US would withdraw from the JCPOA - the Iran nuclear deal.

Trump dutifully fulfilled his end of the bargain with the Adelsons. Now, we are facing a looming war with Iran... at Israel's behest.

These ugly facts are seldom mentioned in the US media.

Britain seized an Iranian tanker, and Iran seized a British tanker. Now, who is on the moral pedestal to demand the other better behave? Actions have consequences, and often unpleasant and dangerous consequences. Look in your own pockets before searching for dirt in others.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Anyone with half a brain could have predicted this.

The hardliners in Iran were always against dealing with the US. Enter Trump who backs out of the deal. The hardliners say this proves they were right, then the Revolutionary Guard, which needs no permission from the government, starts doing their own thing.

Expect lots of lower level engagements, like shooting down drones and capturing tankers. Nothing that will bring all out war, just things that cause headaches for the West in general. And enrichment. Lots and lots of enrichment.

Now what Trump needs to do is build an international coalition to handle - hahahahahahahahah. Sorry. I tried to say that with a straight face. Trump building an international coalition? hahahahahaha ahaha

He has no idea what to do next. The Revolutionary Guard will continue to do what they do, Trump will talk a lot, and that will be that. Trump fans will say utterly useless things like, "Why did we send them money?" to distract from their idiotic support of stopping a working deal that brought us to where we are today.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

We saw what the US military does in the evacuation of Saigon. Also, 4500 American servicemen died in the invasion of Iraq and another 2500 in Afghanistan. This is what bass4funk is advocating

Interesting observation, but we’ve learned from that, this is why the next war won’t need to have ground troops, so no, I’m not advocating for the old guard.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

You have never served your country

I was in Iraq, no gun, but a camera, I did my time for my country and the world actually

America can't win a war with Iran.

It most definitely can, if you let it and keep the Washington bureaucrats out of the mix.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

What options do we have ?

Nuking Iran - not politically viable in the West... unless some of that excess Iranian Nuke material is used to make a dirty bomb that is used in an attack on US soil... then, Iran will be wiped out, and the consequences will be far-reaching thereafter... God help us all in that case.

Naval blockade - doable. Especially with Multiple Countries now involved. Costly, but would be effective. Oil prices will Rocket, and Iran won't benefit, as its own ships will be blocked from entering International waters. Maybe the best option - but painful to see the suffering of the normal man in the street within Iran.

Cruise Missile strike... ineffective, as the recent Syria strikes showed.

Conventional Invasion - unlikely, as Iran has a large military force and their Guerilla tactics would be quite effective against such an invasion.

Where do we go from here ?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

OK, this is slightly off topic, but...

Q. Does IRAN stabilise the region, or destabilize it ?

Were IRAN to be removed from the equation - what would happen next ?

Any thoughts ?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

They still haven't explained why EU sanctions should apply to trade between Iran and Syria.

I'm still looking for an answer to that one too. No luck so far.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

You'd have to be a total idiot if you didn't predict this exact outcome from Trump's actions.

He walked away from a working agreement and engaged in economic warfare. Now Iran is responding in ways they are capable of.

The more the US adds pressure, the more Iran will respond. It might be in Yemen, or Israel, or SA, or harassing the oil supply chain.

But completely and totally predictable. Trump destroyed a working deal and now things are falling apart as a result with no way out.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites