Sponsored Ad

Dismiss Notice
'Users of this forum are reminded they should not discuss performance of individual attendees at PRMC or in Recruit Training for PERsonal SECurity and in observance of Diversity & Inclusion legislation'.

Iran

Discussion in 'RM Operational News' started by RM_Yorkshire, Jul 12, 2019.

  1. rkec

    rkec Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2008
    Posts:
    228
    This wasn't predictable at all -banghead-

    Can't say I blame them either in all honesty. If they seized one of ours first, I'd be calling to seize one of their's.

    I hope calmer heads prevail here. Nobody is in any danger, the crew aren't in danger, the ship and crago aren't in danger. We will look a bit stupid at the end of it as both ships are released, and we all just crack on with life.

    Or we double down on the craziness
     
  2. Moonduster

    Moonduster Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2018
    Posts:
    227
    App Stage:
    Parent
    We’ve got a frigate in the area, what more do you want ;)

    Seriously though, I wouldn’t be surprised if the UK govt was heavily leaned on by the US to seize the tanker last week, so why shouldn’t they help out... like it or not we are a team.
     
  3. Moonduster

    Moonduster Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2018
    Posts:
    227
    App Stage:
    Parent
    .... not that I want matters to escalate.

    As @rkec says, entirely predictable.
     
  4. Ninja_Stoker

    Ninja_Stoker Admin

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Posts:
    33,829
  5. TangoWhisky

    TangoWhisky Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2014
    Posts:
    186
    App Stage:
    Joining other service
  6. rkec

    rkec Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2008
    Posts:
    228
    Spot on, the world isn't falling for our bluffs anymore. They know full well that the Gov has degraded our military and we couldn't respond even if we wanted to. Not that I think we should anyway.

    We'd lost this one the minute we took that tanker in the Med. This was obvious to everyone except it seems those in the Foreign Office. Maybe unfair, we don't know who ordered the taking of the Iranian tanker.

    I've said it for the last 5 years, nobody is in charge of this country. It's stumbling from one short term crisis to another both at home and abroad. There is nobody at the controls.
     
  7. Omega

    Omega Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Posts:
    305
    App Stage:
    Joining other service
    If we haven't got the warships, my bet is the Royal Marines may well be deployed on inbound and outbound UK Merchant Navy ships transiting the Straits of Hormuz very shortly.
     
  8. Wings

    Wings Parachute Regiment

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2014
    Posts:
    1,094
    If anything happens itll be special forces no one else.
     
    • Disagree. Disagree. x 1
    • Gen Dit Gen Dit x 1
  9. Polo

    Polo Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2009
    Posts:
    265
  10. dodgyknees

    dodgyknees Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2017
    Posts:
    319
    App Stage:
    Parent
    Not necessarily. There are already RMs on some civvy ships in the area.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Rover

    Rover Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    3,401
    Interesting the difference in the rhetoric between then and now!


     
  12. rkec

    rkec Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2008
    Posts:
    228
    There isn't much point putting guards on ships, or diverting tankers now. They don't want numerous tankers all over their ports having to defend them. The Iranian's only want to level the scores, the last thing they want to look like is the aggressor in this. They've made their point and I'm pretty sure they want things resolved.

    What scares me is our media, and the comments.
     
    • Gen Dit Gen Dit x 1
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2019
  13. Rover

    Rover Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    3,401
    The aggressor here I see as Trump and his sidekick Bolton.-vomit- Both being happy to see a war with Iran.:mad:

    Ideally started by a ‘proxy’ such as the UK the USA being happy to keep stirring the pot.-banghead-
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Gen Dit Gen Dit x 1
  14. Rover

    Rover Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    3,401
    Was the Iran tanker crisis avoidable?

    upload_2019-7-20_11-33-35.gif

    Jonathan Marcus Diplomatic correspondent@Diplo1



    This crisis was entirely predictable, but was it avoidable?

    At the start of this month the Gibraltarian authorities - aided by a detachment of Royal Marines - detained a tanker which was believed to be carrying Iranian oil destined for Syria.

    This would have been a breach of EU sanctions directed against various Syrian entities and individuals.

    Gibraltar and Britain insist they were acting entirely legally, but Tehran has described the episode as piracy.

    And ever since the vessel was detained, the Iranians have been threatening to seize a British-flagged ship in retaliation.

    ( Indeed, an earlier effort by Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps to divert a British tanker into Iranian waters was only averted by the muscular intervention of a Royal Navy warship, the Type 23 frigate HMS Montrose. )

    But there is a limit to what one warship can do.

    This time it appears not to have arrived on the scene quickly enough and the Stena Impero and its crew are now in Iranian hands.

    A second ship that was detained by the Iranians was subsequently allowed to go, underlining the fact that this seems to be a direct retaliation for the arrest of the tanker off Gibraltar.

    Diplomacy, not force

    So what happens now?

    Well the first thing to remember is that this specific row between Tehran and London is only one aspect of an already highly volatile situation in the Gulf.

    The Trump administration's decision to walk away from the international nuclear deal with Iran and to re-apply sanctions is having a hugely damaging impact on the Iranian economy.

    Iran is pushing back.

    While it denies some of these actions, the US and its allies believe it was responsible for attacking several vessels with limpet mines.

    It has also shot-down a sophisticated US unmanned aircraft.

    And, as if to underline the risk of conflict, the US claims more recently to have shot down an Iranian UAV (drone) that approached one of its vessels. The Iranians deny the loss.

    So the first order of business is to try to calm tensions and avoid escalation.

    Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt has made it clear that he wants this problem resolved urgently, but that the way ahead will rely upon diplomacy not force.

    He has already spoken with his US counterpart - Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

    He has tried, but so far failed, to speak to his Iranian opposite number.

    There are likely to be many more bilateral conversations in the hours and days ahead as Britain seeks to develop as wide a coalition of countries as possible to try to encourage Iran to release the Stena Impero.

    While Britain will not want to have this presented as a simple exchange of vessels - it maintains that Iran's actions, contrary to its own, are illegal - it is highly likely that the fate of the Grace 1 - the vessel detained off Gibraltar - will have to figure in any future arrangement.

    Since Iran's threats to UK-flagged shipping were well known, this episode is highly embarrassing for the British government.

    The priority now will be to ensure the safe return of the vessel and its crew.

    upload_2019-7-20_11-33-35.gif

    But difficult questions will have to be answered concerning the decisions that have been taken and the resources available.

    Given the highly fragile and volatile situation in the Gulf, together with the desperate need to bolster the flagging Iran nuclear accord, was it sensible to detain the vessel carrying Iranian oil off Gibraltar?

    Were the wider potential consequences adequately examined?

    What did ministers think Iran would do?

    And did they really believe that this arrest could be insulated from the wider crisis in the Gulf?

    Secondly, why was UK shipping not adequately protected in the Gulf?

    There are only a relatively small number of UK-flagged vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz, but, as events have shown, far too many for one hard-pressed warship and its crew to provide security.

    This time, HMS Montrose apparently arrived just minutes too late to intervene.

    A second warship is on its way, the Type 45 destroyer HMS Duncan.

    We are told that the decision to announce the despatch of the second vessel was thought about long and hard - balancing the need for security against a desire not to do anything to escalate tensions.

    Nonetheless, Iran was signalling its intentions loud and clear. It was neither deterred nor dissuaded from seizing a British tanker.

    Uncomfortable issues

    The episode raises some uncomfortable issues regarding Britain's global maritime role.

    The UK has the pretence of playing a significant naval role in the Gulf.

    This today amounts to a naval base, one frigate, a Royal Fleet Auxiliary amphibious landing ship and four mine counter-measures vessels - what used to be called minesweepers.

    One destroyer is on its way and another vessel is due to head to Gulf waters in due course.

    This force was not configured to protect British shipping.

    Naval experts believe that the Royal Navy simply no longer has sufficient numbers of work-horses - frigates and destroyers - to be able to surge vessels into the Gulf when a crisis beckons.

    You clearly cannot be everywhere at once.

    Britain must tailor its armed forces according to its means. But this crisis did not erupt yesterday.

    And for whatever reason, the naval presence there was insufficient to prevent the seizure of a British merchant vessel.

    Perhaps Iran's warnings were not taken seriously enough?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49054318
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Gen Dit Gen Dit x 1
  15. THOR

    THOR New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2016
    Posts:
    9
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    Just to throw into the mix the issue when it comes to merchant vessels and guarding against seizures.

    To find a merchant vessel that doesn't have a number of things that make it detain-able is a near impossible feet, especially when it comes to cargo (although even the cruise vessels etc floating around at the moment have their fair share of labour law breaches and magic pipes).

    Essentially what this means is a nations military and/or port authority can board a vessel, throw a rock, and have a pretty good chance of hitting a valid reason to be there. The cost to fix vessels to the point where all areas are covered is beyond a joke, so a status quo is really the only option; whereby everyone just agrees to leave each others vessels alone.

    As to Irans position. I believe their inflation is siting at about 40% plus, unemployment is through the roof, oil exports are down to about a fifth of their regular. The GDP growth was near to 15% after Obamas administration removed sanctions and now with Trumps fresh Sanctions their GDP is shrinking at 5%. I don't actually see a way they will be able to hold out against the economic pressure but if they do shut the Strait of Hormuz they would essentially shoot themselves in the foot as their own traffic would be majorly affected (not to mention with vessels having flags of convenience, charter companies, foreign crews etc they'd be sure to urk their allies at the same time).

    That's my two pennies worth anyway.
     
  16. Chelonian

    Chelonian Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Posts:
    7,427
    A distasteful factor about the Stena Impero is the nationality of the crew. Distasteful inasmuch as the ship is crewed by Eastern European and Asian personnel so there is no extra political pressure on either the UK or USA to rapidly resolve the matter.

    I'd speculate that there was considerable disappointment in Tehran and relief in both London and DC when the crew itself was discovered to be of low negotiating value. A disgraceful aspect of this episode in my opinion.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  17. Rover

    Rover Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    3,401
    Nothing new here. As far as the shipping company is concerned it helps keep the running cost down.o_O
    Have a look at who crews 'your' holiday cruise ship.;)
     
    • Gen Dit Gen Dit x 1
  18. Chelonian

    Chelonian Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Posts:
    7,427
    Definitely. BP Shipping outsourced its entire fleet in the mid-1980s for that very reason.
    Very little mention in the media about the welfare of the crew of Stena Impero so far.

    Holiday cruise ship? :eek: I might be getting on a bit but even so...
     
  19. Rover

    Rover Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    3,401
    Shalom.:cool:
     
    • Hoofin Hoofin x 1
  20. Rover

    Rover Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    3,401
    Iranian SF board tanker.....