US and Iran

[Black Orchid]

Iran's Revolutionary Guards said Friday they had seized a British-flagged tanker in the Strait of Hormuz for breaking "international maritime rules" as tensions mount in the highly sensitive waterway.
Britain however said Iran had seized two ships in the Gulf, with Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt warning of "serious consequences" if the issue was not resolved quickly.

The British owner of one of the tankers, the Liberian-flagged Mesdar, said the ship had been temporarily boarded by armed personnel, but was free to leave and that all crew were "safe and well."

The latest incidents came as President Donald Trump insisted Friday that the US military had downed an Iranian drone that was threatening an American naval vessel in the Strait of Hormuz -- through which nearly a third of the world's oil is transported -- despite denials from Tehran.

Tensions in the Gulf have soared in recent weeks, with Trump calling off air strikes against Iran at the last minute in June after Tehran downed a US drone, and blaming Iran for a series of tanker attacks.

'Serious consequences'

On Friday, the Stena Impero tanker "was confiscated... for failing to respect international maritime rules," the Revolutionary Guards' official website Sepahnews said.

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

Tanker tracking service Marine Traffic showed that the Swedish-owned Stena Impero last signalled its location near the island of Larak at 9:00 PM local time (1630 GMT).

The ship was transiting the Strait of Hormuz and in "international waters" when it was "attacked by unidentified small crafts and a helicopter," the owner said.

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

Hunt said he was "extremely concerned" by the seizure of the two vessels.

"We are absolutely clear that if this situation is not resolved quickly there will be serious consequences," he told Sky News.

The incident came hours after Gibraltar's Supreme Court said it would extend by 30 days the detention of an Iranian tanker seized two weeks ago on allegations that it was heading to Syria in violation of sanctions.

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/uk-clai ... -1-2072400

[Wally Raffles]

It is impossible to foresee how this will end well. Oil tankers will have to go the long way around the southern tip of South Africa, I suspect.

[brian ross]

You do know where the Straits of Hormuz are, don't you? South Africa has nothing to do with it.

[Black Orchid]

Iran warns US it’s ‘ready for fully-fledged war’ after drone attack on oil rig.

Before and after pictures show how armed drones carried out a devastating attack that wiped out five per cent of the world’s crude oil supplies.

Iran has warned the US it’s “ready for a fully-fledged war” after it was blamed for a drone attack on Saudi Arabia that wiped out five per cent of the world’s crude oil supplies.

Crude prices have rocketed more than 19 per cent since the attack on the world’s biggest crude-processing facility and the kingdom’s second-biggest oilfield.

Before and after satellite images show how the drones, attacking Saudi Arabia’s Abqaiq plant and its Khurais oilfield, tore through the facilities — leading to the interruption of an estimated 5.7 million barrels of the kingdom’s crude oil.

The attack is the single worst sudden disruption to the oil market ever, and senior members of the US government are laying the blame on Iran.

However, Iran denies any involvement and it has responded with fury to the accusation, going as far as to threaten US bases with missile strikes.

The Islamic Republic’s Revolutionary Guard says its forces could strike US military bases across the Middle East with their arsenal of ballistic missiles.

A senior Revolutionary Guard commander, Amirali Hajizadeh, told Tasnim news agency: “Everybody should know that all American bases and their aircraft carriers in a distance of up to 2000km around Iran are within the range of our missiles.”

The devastating attack over the weekend halved Saudi Arabian oil production and could fuel a crisis in the region, it has been claimed.

More at ... https://www.news.com.au/world/middle-ea ... 5516475c3b

Iran backed Houthi rebels claimed the attack which puts Iran clearly to blame. It seems they will fall short of nothing in their attempt to provoke the US into war.

[brian ross]

I think you'll find it's actually the Houthi movement, Black Orchid.

What I find interesting is that despite the Houthi's claiming responsibility, el Presidente' trump is apparently hell bent on blaming the Iranians. The Iranians appear to be denying involvement. What benefit would Iran gain from attacking Saudi Arabia at this point in time?

Now, I wonder why we should accept el Presidente's word on this? Afterall, the US has been found to have engaged on numerous occasions in what are called in the Conspiranut's dictionary, "false flag" operations (ie the mining of Nicaraguan harbours, the Bay of Pigs operation against Cuba, etc.). Then you have the cases of the US Administration breaking the laws passed by the US Legislature (ie the Nicaraguan Drugs deals of the CIA, Iran-Contra affair, etc.). How are we to know the truth with the US Government?

[Black Orchid]

Yes, Houthi, my bad and a typo. As for the rest it is little wonder that you would side with Iran, but to be expected.

[Bogan]

Brian Ross wrote

I think you'll find it's actually the Houthi movement, Black Orchid.

The Houthi's are Shiite's, and they do the bidding of Iran. Brian already knows that but his default position is to always take the side of the worst totalitarians around the globe as opposed to the western democracises, especially the USA.

Brian Ross wrote

What I find interesting is that despite the Houthi's claiming responsibility, el Presidente' trump is apparently hell bent on blaming the Iranians. The Iranians appear to be denying involvement. What benefit would Iran gain from attacking Saudi Arabia at this point in time?

The mullahs are in trouble. They are a "right wing" totalitarian government composed almost entirely of the clergy. As a leftist, one would have thought that Brian Ross would automatically oppose such a government? But Brian hates the western democracies more than he hates right wing totalitarians. So he becomes an apologist for the Mullahs and supports their claim that they are innocent of any involvement in the attack.

Brian Ross wrote

What benefit would Iran gain from attacking Saudi Arabia at this point in time?

Brian would have to be completely stupid if he did not know the answer to that one. Brian is not completely stupid. He knows that the mullahs are well on their way to developing nuclear weapons. And like the idiot he is, he apparently thinks that is a great idea. He knows that President's Trump's sanctions are really hurting the mullahs and endangering their iron grip on power through internal unrest. Brian knows that the mullahs are trying to redirect the unrest through provoking a war with the USA.

But Brian hates the USA and president Trump a lot more then he despises the right wing clergy dominated totalitarian government of Iran. A government who is trying to provoke a very serious war through planting limpet mines on tankers, shooting down a very expensive US super drone over International airspace, and encouraging their Houti allies to launch a very clever mini drone attack on Saudi oil refineries. So Brian will run interference for the power mad, war mongering mullahs as a way of attacking the USA, the leader of the free world.

Brian ross wrote

Now, I wonder why we should accept el Presidente's word on this? Afterall, the US has been found to have engaged on numerous occasions in what are called in the Conspiranut's dictionary, "false flag" operations (ie the mining of Nicaraguan harbours, the Bay of Pigs operation against Cuba, etc.).

Brian knows the answer to that one too. It is another misdirection effort on behalf of the 7th century mullahs he prefers over the USA. He knows that Trump is committed to pulling back US forces around the world and to stop getting involved in fighting other people's wars. The USA obviously has no wish to destabilise world oil prices by getting involved in a war with Iran which has the capability to close the Gulf, unless the USA does something very serious about it. But the USA is justifiably worried about what will happen if a terrorism promoting government gets hold of a nuclear weapon. So it is mandatory for the USA to continue impose sanctions on Iran in the hope that the Iranian people will rise up and throw off their oppressors.

Brian does not want that. He likes the idea of terrorists getting a nuclear weapon, and he likes the idea of the crazy mullahs remaining in power so that they can keep provoking the USA he hates, into a very serious, full scale war.

Brian Ross wrote

Then you have the cases of the US Administration breaking the laws passed by the US Legislature (ie the Nicaraguan Drugs deals of the CIA, Iran-Contra affair, etc.). How are we to know the truth with the US Government.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt broke US law by supplying Britain with 50 "obsolete" destroyers during WW2, which the British converted into anti submarine ships. If Roosevelt had not done that, Britain would almost certainly lost the Battle of the Atlantic, and Hitler would have won the war.

[brian ross]

Yes, Houthi, my bad and a typo. As for the rest it is little wonder that you would side with Iran, but to be expected.

I am siding with no one, Black Orchid. I am asking questions, questions which I suggest we all should be asking rather than just accepting either side's views on the matter. I have put forward the various cases that show the US is not above using "false flag" operations to further it's objectives to create a casus belli.

The Iranians are without a doubt, a bunch of bastards but then so are the Americans. Don't assume that either side is right, Black Orchid.

[brian ross]

Brian Ross wrote

I think you'll find it's actually the Houthi movement, Black Orchid.

The Houthi's are Shiite's, and they do the bidding of Iran. Brian already knows that but his default position is to always take the side of the worst totalitarians around the globe as opposed to the western democracises, especially the USA.

The Houthis I agree are Sh'ites, Bogan. As to who's "bidding" they do, that remains mysterious. You appear to assume that merely being Sh'ite makes a person or a group incapable of independent action. What does that suggest about your viewpoint?

Brian Ross wrote

What I find interesting is that despite the Houthi's claiming responsibility, el Presidente' trump is apparently hell bent on blaming the Iranians. The Iranians appear to be denying involvement. What benefit would Iran gain from attacking Saudi Arabia at this point in time?

The mullahs are in trouble. They are a "right wing" totalitarian government composed almost entirely of the clergy. As a leftist, one would have thought that Brian Ross would automatically oppose such a government? But Brian hates the western democracies more than he hates right wing totalitarians. So he becomes an apologist for the Mullahs and supports their claim that they are innocent of any involvement in the attack.

Not all Theocracies are bad, Bogan. The UK is a democratic Theocracy - it's Head of State is also the Head of the Church. The Iranians are bastards, I agree. They are a bad type of theocracy. However, they still deserve until proven otherwise, the benefit of the doubt. The US has a bad track record of "false flag" operations against it's opponents, in order to create a casus belli for themselves. Forgotten the Weapons of Massed Destraction case against Iraq, so quickly?

Brian Ross wrote

What benefit would Iran gain from attacking Saudi Arabia at this point in time?

Brian would have to be completely stupid if he did not know the answer to that one. Brian is not completely stupid. He knows that the mullahs are well on their way to developing nuclear weapons. And like the idiot he is, he apparently thinks that is a great idea. He knows that President's Trump's sanctions are really hurting the mullahs and endangering their iron grip on power through internal unrest. Brian knows that the mullahs are trying to redirect the unrest through provoking a war with the USA.

I am unsure how sanctions applied by the USA would cause the Iranians to attack the Saudi Arabians, Bogan. Would you care to explain to us how this works? I am at a loss to understand how US sanctions would cause the Iranians to attack Saudi Arabian oil facilities which would hurt the US, how, exactly? We have seen how the US has initially responded - they have used their strategic oil reserves and I don't doubt they'll step up production of their own oil reserves. This seems a nonsensical attack to me as it could provoke the US into attacking Iran. Do you really think that the Iranians care so little for their own people that they would provoke a US "shock and awe" campaign against them?

But Brian hates the USA and president Trump a lot more then he despises the right wing clergy dominated totalitarian government of Iran. A government who is trying to provoke a very serious war through planting limpet mines on tankers, shooting down a very expensive US super drone over International airspace, and encouraging their Houti allies to launch a very clever mini drone attack on Saudi oil refineries. So Brian will run interference for the power mad, war mongering mullahs as a way of attacking the USA, the leader of the free world.

As I have pointed out, you have as usual, the wrong end of the stick, Bogan. I don't hate the USA and I don't even particularly hate el Presidente' Trump. I pity the Americans for being so foolish that they have elected an apparently bumbling fool like Trump who appears hell bent on leading them into yet another war. We have seen how American war making works in Afghanistan and Iraq. It benefits no one, not even the USA.

Brian ross wrote

Now, I wonder why we should accept el Presidente's word on this? Afterall, the US has been found to have engaged on numerous occasions in what are called in the Conspiranut's dictionary, "false flag" operations (ie the mining of Nicaraguan harbours, the Bay of Pigs operation against Cuba, etc.).

Brian knows the answer to that one too. It is another misdirection effort on behalf of the 7th century mullahs he prefers over the USA. He knows that Trump is committed to pulling back US forces around the world and to stop getting involved in fighting other people's wars. The USA obviously has no wish to destabilise world oil prices by getting involved in a war with Iran which has the capability to close the Gulf, unless the USA does something very serious about it. But the USA is justifiably worried about what will happen if a terrorism promoting government gets hold of a nuclear weapon.

Yet it appears that the US is quite willing to allow a "terrorist promoting government to get hold of nuclear weapons," in the form of Israel and Pakistan. It actively encouraged Pakistan's bomb making efforts in the 1980s. It has turned a blind eye to the Israeli efforts over the last 50+ years. You don't see a contradiction between what you claim and what has actually happened, Bogan or is that impossible in your blind allegiance to a foreign power like the US?

So it is mandatory for the USA to continue impose sanctions on Iran in the hope that the Iranian people will rise up and throw off their oppressors.

Gee, how well is that plan working? Can't see any attempt at that occurring.

Brian does not want that. He likes the idea of terrorists getting a nuclear weapon, and he likes the idea of the crazy mullahs remaining in power so that they can keep provoking the USA he hates, into a very serious, full scale war.

What makes you think that Iran would trust any Terrorist group to have it's rather precious Nuclear Weapons (which BTW it is still very much in the early stages of enriching the Uranium for)? Terrorist groups have their own allegiances and it usually isn't anything except face value to Tehran. Nuclear weapons being given freely to Terrorist groups? In yours and el Presidente Trump and the other Hawks in Washington's imaginations perhaps.

In reality, I'd rather that no one had nuclear weapons, Bogan. Be it Moscow, Beijing, Tel Aviv, London, Paris, New Delhi, Islamabad or Tehran or Washington.

Brian Ross wrote

Then you have the cases of the US Administration breaking the laws passed by the US Legislature (ie the Nicaraguan Drugs deals of the CIA, Iran-Contra affair, etc.). How are we to know the truth with the US Government.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt broke US law by supplying Britain with 50 "obsolete" destroyers during WW2, which the British converted into anti submarine ships. If Roosevelt had not done that, Britain would almost certainly lost the Battle of the Atlantic, and Hitler would have won the war.

Hindsight is a wonderful asset, isn't it, Bogan? Roosevelt actually didn't break any US laws. He did a "deal" - something Trump is supposedly a master of although we haven't seen any real evidence of that, yet - he agreed to supply the Destroyers - which had all been declared "obsolete" by the US Navy - in exchange for US access to bases in Newfoundland and the Caribbean. Hardly a bad case, considering resistance to the deal was basically overcome by events in Europe and a national election (which Roosevelt won BTW), I think your views are nonsensical. The US is not facing a similar situation now. Executive actions by the Presidency have long been a subject for debate in the US, hence the passing of the War Powers Act in 1975 which removed those powers from the Presidency...

How about you talk about the times the US Administration has broken it's own legislation which forbid it to do the things I mentioned? Or are they too difficult for even you to justify?

[Bogan]

Briney wrote

The Houthis I agree are Sh'ites, Bogan. As to who's "bidding" they do, that remains mysterious. You appear to assume that merely being Sh'ite makes a person or a group incapable of independent action. What does that suggest about your viewpoint?

It suggests that I have a realistic viewpoint based upon my understanding of history, and a realistic appreciation of recent events. The Saudis and Iranians are ideological enemies, based up a 1300 year blood feud between the Shiites and the Sunnis over the leadership of the Muslim world. The mullahs in Iran will do anything to promote the Shiite cause. They have been arming Hezbollah with rockets, the Houthis with arms, and aiding the Shiite government of Iraq in their fight against Sunni ISIS.

Once again, you imply that I am wrong, but submit nothing to suggest that your peculiar worldview is correct.

Brian wrote

Not all Theocracies are bad, Bogan. The UK is a democratic Theocracy - it's Head of State is also the Head of the Church.

Irrelevant hair splitting.

Brian wrote

The Iranians are bastards, I agree. They are a bad type of theocracy. However, they still deserve until proven otherwise, the benefit of the doubt.

That is another one of your contradictions based upon your reflexive contempt of your own western civilisation. A civilisation you prefer to live in. . Remember when you wrote this.....?

Old Brian Quote

As you said, its to whom you give the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately I do not give the benefit of the doubt to any government, American, British, Soviet or Australian as far these sorts of matters are concerned.

You give the benefit of the doubt to an odious terrorism endorsing totalitarian government, that is trying to acquire nuclear weapons as a way of bringing about Armageddon? But you don't give the benefit of the doubt to democracies?

No wonder people are voting for Trump, Brexit, and Pauline, and the Left is losing it.

Brian Ross wrote

The US has a bad track record of "false flag" operations against it's opponents, in order to create a casus belli for themselves. Forgotten the Weapons of Massed Destruction case against Iraq, so quickly?

I remember Saddam Hussein doing everything he could to convince the USA that he was continuing to build nuclear weapons, in the stupid belief that the USA was full of Brian Ross clones who would do nothing about it. Naturally, your reflexive inclination is to always blame the yanks, instead of one of the world's most odious dictators who dropped poisoned gas on his own citizens. Strange way of thinking.

No wonder people are voting for Trump, Brexit, and Pauline, and the Left is losing it.

Brian wrote

I am unsure how sanctions applied by the USA would cause the Iranians to attack the Saudi Arabians, Bogan.

Well, I would not hire you are a political analyst, Brian.

Brian Ross wrote

Would you care to explain to us how this works? I am at a loss to understand how US sanctions would cause the Iranians to attack Saudi Arabian oil facilities which would hurt the US, how, exactly? We have seen how the US has initially responded - they have used their strategic oil reserves and I don't doubt they'll step up production of their own oil reserves. This seems a nonsensical attack to me as it could provoke the US into attacking Iran.

The US economy is geared to the world economy. If world oil prices spike because the criminal Iranian regime are sabotaging oil refineries and planting limpet mines on tankers, then that concerns the USA. Especially as Saudi Arabia is supposed to be under the protection of the US.

Brian Ross wrote

Do you really think that the Iranians care so little for their own people that they would provoke a US "shock and awe" campaign against them?

Of course I do. They are the same religious nutters who gave teenaged boys plastic keys (to heaven) and sent them in human waves, armed with ancient Mauser bolt action rifles against massed machine guns. The country is ruled by religious fanatics from the 6th century who think that they are on a holy mission to rule the world for Allah. Perhaps if the Iranians were white, waving swastikas, and denouncing infidel "untermenschen", you might have the wit to figure out what is going on?

Briney wrote

As I have pointed out, you have as usual, the wrong end of the stick, Bogan. I don't hate the USA and I don't even particularly hate el Presidente' Trump.

I'll take that with a grain of salt.

Brian Ross wrote


I pity the Americans for being so foolish that they have elected an apparently bumbling fool like Trump who appears hell bent on leading them into yet another war.

If Trump wanted a war, he could have used the shooting down of their most expensive and advanced drone to do just that. The bombers were bombed up and ready to go. But he stopped the mission because he knew that he would be playing into the mullahs hands. The mullahs want a war, the Americans don't. But the USA is not going put up with the Iranian mullahs provocations forever.

Brian Ross wrote

We have seen how American war making works in Afghanistan and Iraq. It benefits no one, not even the USA.

Trump agrees with that. But there are dangerous regimes around the world who either do want to provoke a war, seek world domination, or who engage in dangerous brinkmanship to gain economic concessions from the west. The USA is the only military force capable of making these aggressive regimes think twice. And you think that is just awful? What is wrong with your brain?

Brian Ross wrote

Yet it appears that the US is quite willing to allow a "terrorist promoting government to get hold of nuclear weapons," in the form of Israel and Pakistan. It actively encouraged Pakistan's bomb making efforts in the 1980s. It has turned a blind eye to the Israeli efforts over the last 50+ years. You don't see a contradiction between what you claim and what has actually happened, Bogan or is that impossible in your blind allegiance to a foreign power like the US?

I understand Israel's need for nuclear weapons as it is surrounded by enemies who are sworn to exterminate Israel. And the Jews know what that means. I do not in any way regard Israel as a terrorism promoting government. I have no idea where you got the idea that the USA was happy to see Pakistan get an "Islamic bomb," much less help the Pakis to obtain one. I Look forward to another one of your comical conspiracy theories.

Briney wrote

Gee, how well is that plan working? Can't see any attempt at that occurring.

The mullahs can. So, just like Galtieri, Amin, and Hussein, they think a war will unite the people behind them.

Brine wrote.

What makes you think that Iran would trust any Terrorist group to have it's rather precious Nuclear Weapons (which BTW it is still very much in the early stages of enriching the Uranium for)? Terrorist groups have their own allegiances and it usually isn't anything except face value to Tehran. Nuclear weapons being given freely to Terrorist groups? In yours and el Presidente Trump and the other Hawks in Washington's imaginations perhaps

.

Because the mullahs are religious nutters from the 6th century with a holy mission to rule the world. So, you trust these nutters more than you trust a democratically elected President, who was elected by the deplorable Kulaks in America, over the objections of the US Establishment aristocracy.

No wonder people are voting for Trump, Brexit, and Pauline, and the Left is losing it.

Brian wrote

In reality, I'd rather that no one had nuclear weapons, Bogan. Be it Moscow, Beijing, Tel Aviv, London, Paris, New Delhi, Islamabad or Tehran or Washington

So would I. But wishful thinking is hardly rational thinking.

Brian wrote

Hindsight is a wonderful asset, isn't it, Bogan? Roosevelt actually didn't break any US laws.

My understanding of history is that he did. But that would put a different perspective on your idea that if a President breaks US law, then that must be judged absolutely reprehensible. If Roosevelt had not broken US law, Hitler would have won WW2. There was even a 1941 "Eric Snowdon", a diplomatic cipher clerk who was so outraged at Roosevelt's deliberate attempts to break US neutrality and get the US involved in the war, that he leaked secret messages between Washington and London to the press.

Brian Ross wrote

He did a "deal" - something Trump is supposedly a master of although we haven't seen any real evidence of that, yet - he agreed to supply the Destroyers - which had all been declared "obsolete" by the US Navy - in exchange for US access to bases in Newfoundland and the Caribbean. Hardly a bad case, considering resistance to the deal was basically overcome by events in Europe and a national election (which Roosevelt won BTW), I think your views are nonsensical. The US is not facing a similar situation now. Executive actions by the Presidency have long been a subject for debate in the US, hence the passing of the War Powers Act in 1975 which removed those powers from the Presidency...

Which shows the value of keeping barely "obsolete" ships in case there is a war and you need them.

Brian Ross wrote

How about you talk about the times the US Administration has broken it's own legislation which forbid it to do the things I mentioned? Or are they too difficult for even you to justify?

It depends on what they are. I don't have an Absolutist mindset like you, where you demand absolutist positions, and can not recognise your own contradictions when you break the absolute rules you insist that everybody else should abide by.