Tensions are mounting in the Persian Gulf Friday after Iran’s Revolutionary Guards captured a British-flagged oil tanker, the Stena Impero, as it entered the Strait of Hormuz. The tanker was captured with 23 people on board.
This follows a recent incident in which British Marines captured the
Iranian oil tanker Grace 1 as it tried to pass through the Strait of
Gibraltar, and towed it into Gibraltar, where it remains detained. This
sort of tit-for-tat detention is likely intended to set the stage for a
trade.
Britain accused the Grace 1 of carrying Iranian oil to Syria, in
violation of EU measures forbidding Syria from getting oil. Iran has
accused the Stena Impero of turning off its tracker and ignoring several warnings to turn it back on in the crowded Strait of Hormuz. The Stena Impero did not have any oil on board, and was en route to Saudi Arabia at the time.
Strangely, for parts of Friday afternoon, a second British tanker, the
Liberian-flagged Mesdar, was also claimed to have been “captured” by
Iran. This turned out not to be the case, however, and exactly what
happened is a matter of some dispute.
The ship’s British owner, the Norbulk Shipping UK, claims the Mesdar was captured the the Revolutionary Guards but subsequently released.
Iranian media, however, say the Mesday was never captured in the first
place, and was simply warned about “safety issues” in the area, and
advised to leave, which it did.
Beyond Britain and US officials claiming Iran captured two tankers, the immediate reaction was Gibraltar announcing that they are going to extend the detention of Iran’s Grace 1 tanker.
While this likely is just buying time for negotiating an exchange of
held ships, it is at present being presented as a distinct move related
to mounting tensions with Iran.
US pressure & EU inaction left Iran with ‘very few options’ except to retaliate.
https://www.rt.com/news/464608-iran-uk-tanker-analysis/
Russia Today’s take on all of this is a lot more objective than our MSM’s constant push for war. You have to wonder why the Dems aren’t making war with Iran their signature issue? Instead, they waste their time dragging Trump down personally, which only revs up his base all the more. I’m afraid they’re looking at another defeat in 2020.
The Dems are just the other head of the two head snake.
The Dem. and Rep. are both war parties.
The Dems owns the Russophobia
The Rep. owns the Iranphobia.
Both parties ( and MSM ) serve AIPAC and the Military complex.
It would appear that impounding the Iranian Tanker in the Mediterranean wasn’t such a great idea.
UK Ministers Catch Heat for Seizing Iranian Tanker as Tehran Hits Back
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/19/gulf-crisis-questions-over-detention-iranian-tanker
I’m not sure they were pissed about the actual seizing of the Iranian tanker as much as they were about not having an escort for their seized tanker. But I’m thinking it was just bait like the rest of the sh*t we have surrounded them with so it’s really all part of the show.
Its probably both.
British Oil Tanker was a Threat to the Environment
https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2019/07/20/601397/UK-Persian-Gulf
More and more facts are coming out.
UK tanker hit Iranian boat, ignored its distress call before capture:
https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2019/07/20/601393/Iran-UK-oil-tanker-Hormuz-Strait
Last night Tulsi Gabbard called again for Trump to swallow his pride, rejoin the JCPOA, de-escalate the military buildup and end the threat of war with Iran that his policies created. Tulsi is so far ahead of the curve that she had to brief Tucker on the situation in Puerto Rico where she joined the thousands of demonstrators demanding the resignation of the Island’s Democratic governor.
Iran doing a “tit-for-tat” is simply playing into the hands of the US neocons. They want a blockade of Iranian oil shipments, which is what the seizure of the Grace was all about, albeit done outside the Gulf to gauge Iranian response.
The Iranian response of seizing a British tanker might be considered a measured response. Also, interfering – whether justified or not – with other shipping in the Gulf is also likely to send a signal that the Straits are under Iranian control.
However, this is going nowhere and is completely pointless, as the US goal remains war with Iran and a blockade is likely to be the means. Therefore, anything Iran does which causes the US government and media to claim Iran is at fault is merely going to accelerate the move to a full blockade, at which point Iran will have no choice but to close the Straits, and then the US can claim justification for starting the war.
If I were Iran at this point, I would hold off on the tit-for-tat, which isn’t going to do anything but waste everyone’s time, and merely wait for the US to start seizing Iran’s oil tankers in the Gulf. Iran could then go to the UNSC and claim the US is committing an act of war. This would put the onus on the US to justify this act of war. Iran might even be able to get a UNSC Resolution – which, of course, the US would veto – that the US is in violation of the UN Charter.
While useless, it would put the rest of the world on notice that the US war with Iran is strictly illegal. This might have consequences in the future for the US in the rest of the world.
Alternatively, if all this is simply a waste of time since the US wants war anyway, then if I were Iran, I’d start it now. Iran’s civilian infrastructure is going to be devastated in any war with the US. But if war is unavoidable, then Iran might as well prepare its infrastructure as much as possible for it and go ahead and start it.
If war is inevitable, taking the initiative is paramount. Imagine the damage Iran could do with its missiles against US, Israeli and Saudi assets in the region if the US were caught unaware by a surprise attack. It would be like Pearl Harbor. Being squeezed is why the Japanese attacked the US in 1942. Iran is in the exact same position today and should do the same.
Your thinking is deeply flawed (as soon as you said “inevitable” you close off a shedload of other possibilities, and paint Iran into a corner where it becomes the aggressor instead of the victim): you think Iran playing the role of the Japanese in WWII is something you’d recommend? Really? If I didn’t know better, I might think you want two Iranian cities destroyed by nukes and multiple cities fire-bombed, with hundreds of thousands of casualties.
Nonsense. The fact remains that the US is not going to be dissuaded – and certainly Israel will not be – until Iran *is* “bombed into the Stone Age.”
Why wait until you’ve lost the initiative?
If you think there are alternatives to this outcome, list your “shedload of other possibilities.” Other than China and Russia directly signing a mutual-defense treaty with Iran, I can’t think of any – and neither country is likely to do that.
Iran would not launch a first strike, and certainly not without Direct provocation. Iran’s military, particularly the navies, has been built with assymetric tactical responses in mind, not a first strike. They do of course have both antiship and surface to surface missiles. But Iran knows it can never match the aggregate firepower of the west. It would be insane to start a war, and as distasteful as the theocratic Regime, they are not insane.
Japan attacked pearl because the pacific ocean stood between them and America and crippling the pacific fleet would greatly delay their response to the Japanese centrifugal offensive, One of the largest and fastest land grabs in history. This is incomparable to Iran, which is already surrounded by hostile neighbors and the western militaries. This is a war that must not be fought.
Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because it knew the US was going to go to war to prevent Japan’s intentions *and* they attacked first because their generals did not think they could defeat the US without a first crippling blow. I read recently over at Colonel Pat Lang’s blog the notion that Japan’s leaders decided to attack anyway because otherwise they “would not be the men they thought they were.” This is in the context of a war with Iran.
See here:
https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2019/07/newt-gingrich-once-explained-to-me-the-basis-against-which-japan-decided-to-go-to-war-against-the-united-states-had-much-to-d.html
I am aware that Iran’s defense policy is strictly defensive and also asymmetrical. However, if I were Iran, I would not wait for the building up of US naval ships in the Gulf, and then have my oil tankers seized, and then try to close the Straits only to have my ships shot out of the water, and then have to retaliate having lost the initiative.
I am not suggesting that Iran launch an attack *right now.* I am suggesting that Iran prepare its civilian infrastructure as much as possible for an inevitable war right now. And then Iran needs to aggressively move to the UN Security Council and get heard there, even if the US vetos any resulting Resolutions. Iran should also begin dispersing its military assets even further underground than I assume it has already been doing for decades. And Iran especially needs to load up and prepare to fire as soon as it is clear the US intends to fire any shot in anger.
Once the US begins seizing Iranian ships in the Gulf, however, that will be the time to take the initiative, announce that the Straits are henceforth closed, and any US naval vessel in the Gulf will be considered a target.
The key to Iran’s being able to deal the US a crippling blow depends entirely on being able to pull off a surprise attack before the US fleet is fully ready to respond, before US bases in the region are on high alert, and before Iran has already lost a significant number of its military assets.
Because make no mistake, once the US launches an air campaign all of Iran’s Air Force will be done for, and most of its naval assets other than the smaller boats will be sunk. And any Iranian military asset above ground will be hit with B-52s that can drop 70,000 pounds of accurately targeted gravity bombs. That is going to leave Iran with its asymmetric assets only and whatever mobile missile launchers they can keep concealed.
Hunkering down and waiting out the initial air campaign – which will last weeks or months – is going to be a bad idea. It worked for Serbia because they had dispersed their assets throughout their heavily forested regions. Iran is not likely to fair as well.
Iran does not need total surprise to win in the strait. No matter how it begins, if fifth fleet tries to force the strait open, they will be trapped by swarm tactics, and utterly destroyed, just as van Riper did so long ago.
Thankfully, the high echelons of the Iranian state do not share your belief that only a first strike would serve their strategic interests. Believe it or not, they like being in power. They know they can’t win in terms of firepower, regardless of the fact that the mountainous terrain of gigantic Iran would bog the us down in a quagmire for decades, their country would still be shattered.
Let’s just hope that Donny T listens to his paleoconservative base and doesn’t get convinced to strike or directly provoke a Persian gulf incident, he and the far right maniacs lose in 2020 and his successor reimplements jcpoa
The US fleet won’t be inside the Gulf when they try to force open the Straits. They will be outside in the Gulf of Oman or the Arabian Sea. As others have said, you will know when the Iran war is about to start because the US Fleet will *leave* the Gulf, not enter it. Also the US Navy has presumably learned something from the 2002 war
games. If not, perhaps they will be trapped inside the Gulf, but that is unlikely. – at least once their wooden minesweepers (the US still uses those
because steel-hulled vessels attract magnetic mines) have been destroyed by Iranian coastal missiles
They will use attack helicopters and other aircraft to destroy any Iranian mine-laying vessels or other boats inside the Gulf or Straits. They will be using B-52s to bomb the Iranian coast (although I don’t expect that to be effective.) Swarm tactics will only work inside the Gulf where Iranian speedboats can duck into coves to hide between attacks.
As far as Iran first strike opinions, I’m sure their military strategists are clear about the outcome of a conventional war against the US. There is no chance they can beat the US gun for gun. Asymmetric methods are their only hope – and a surprise attack once war is obviously going to happen is the perfect attack – as Japan proved in WWII.
The US won’t be attempting to occupy all of Iran. It will have to invade at least the coastal areas of Iran if the US wants to have even a remote hope of keeping the Straits open, however. But I don’t expect that to happen until the US Navy is forced to admit they can’t keep the Straits open.
So initially the US campaign will be by air only. The Air Force will conduct a full-scale air campaign and the Navy will use its air power against Iranian resources in the Gulf.
This will also give the US time to move the scores of thousands of troops it will need to prosecute the war beyond that. The US can’t afford to set up large bases within range of the Iranian missiles until most of those assets have been degraded sufficiently. So the initial campaign may well last months before US troops are moved in for a ground attack. This means the Straits will be closed for possibly some months, so the oil companies can make their profits from the high oil prices accordingly.
As for Trump’s “paleoconservative base”, there is no such thing. He has a base consisting of some random people who don’t like US wars – who are hardly “paleoconservatives” – and who don’t like Mexicans coming into the country – and some eight million Christian Zionists who want to see Iran destroyed so that Israel can take over the Middle East. Who do think numbers the most? The Republicans are pushing to expand their support among the Christian Zionists, which should tell you something.
No one in control of Trump cares whether he gets re-elected. And whoever comes in next will not be re-implementing the JCPOA because whoever that is will still be beholden to the Israelis and their rich Zionist supporters in the US – not to mention the military-industrial complex and the oil campanies.
Unless it’s Tulsi Gabbard – and that ain’t gonna happen.
Being in the strait is the only way they could even attempt to defend The oil tankers. However, if they do realize they have No chance and simply refuse to defend the tankers, meaning no more tankers at all, meaning Iran achieved its objective to block the strait, punishing the west with panic speculation and its resultant economic disruption.
Wars can’t be won from the air, eespecially in terrain like Iran’s. No other country knows that better than Iran, who when air strikes against Afghanistan began and accomplished nothing except making craters, Iran stepped in to mediate between the Northern Alliance and the western coalition and coordinate air and land operations.
If even a single warship is sunk, make it a destroyer, and we lost hundreds of sailors, I fear tyhat war fever will grip the country.
To defeat the Taliban took the assistance of native fighters. Now, two decades later the Taliban remain the power in Afghanistan and actually control more territory than they did in 2001.
So we couldn’t beat the Taliban, a bunch of thugs, in 20 years. The only way to have even false hope to win against Iran WOULD be a full scale invasion. One must merely look at Iranian topography to realize the nightmare a counter insurgency would be. The alternative is that we realize it is all hopeless, withdraw entirely and immediately from the persian gulf and the middle east. I’d love for that to happen, but we should understand that our leaving the region is precisely what Iran would consider a victory. After 70 years of interference and bad faith, America withdraws from the region, defeated. a victory for them, surely, but actually also for us, as Americans are no longer dying in a giant sandbox for no reason at all.
Yeah, Fuck Christian Zionists for real though.
I’m pretty sure all the candidates said they would reinstate the jcpoa. Those I think mean it are Bernie, tulsi, maybe Warren though she can be horrendous.
If I could talk to the Iranian naval commanders, I would beg them not to do things like this. It is all just provocation from the West for some kind of Persian Gulf incident casus belli. Of course, that would just be asking them to bend over and take it so if they laughed at and dismissed me, well, that’s what I would do too.
This war will be an absolute catastrophe, spreading far beyond the Persian Gulf. The earliest disaster will surely be the destruction of the Fifth Fleet when it tries to reopen Hormuz and fails against Iran’s assymmetric naval strategy, unable to maneuver effectively in the narrow waterway and counter swarm tactics. Madness. Let’s hope this does not happen.