Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Cog wrote:You really think that Iran glassing Israel won't result in Iran being erased from the planet?Israel has nukes too.

MAD principles apply here and most likely both Israel and Iran would be left alone.
Decision centers determining american policy are really in Israel, and peple there do not consider themselves disposable.
Credible threat of Israel destruction is a war stopper for both Israel and US, particularly if Iran offers no aggression deal.
Israeli situation is also peculiar because of very small teritory.
Successful decapitating first strike against Israel is a credible threat, unlike in the case of US or Russia.
Israel can only rely on US in larger war.

What the Iranians are currently doing with this ship seizure and acts of terrorism is to force the US into dropping sanctions.

Nope.
All what they want is their tanker back and then they will promptly release british one.
I can offer a bet in this respect.

Their military could be destroyed within days if the USA wished it to be so. So far, the Iranians have not directly attacked US warships or US interests. The Global Hawk shoot down notwithstanding. If that changes, the Iranians will find out what a real military is all about.

Open Iraqui styled war on Iran will result in Chinese seizure of Taiwan at the same time.
US doesn't want it for sure, so all what they will do is either few airstrikes or nothing.
Most likely nothing at the moment.
Brits will need to negotiate exchange of ship they have pirated for their ship which Iran have pirated in retaliation.

My taking on the subject is that larger scale war here is unlikely as all parties would loose much and gain next to nothing.

I have a better solution. Just sink or destroy any Iranian vessel that is engaged in piracy. The Iranians can't stop us from doing that and we would be acting well within the norms of using force to stop piracy on the open seas. Any further expansion into outright war would totally be on the heads of the Iranians.

The latest propaganda BS from the chihuahua statelet known as the UK is that Russia confused the tanker with GPS jamming. This crap is for the typical ignorant mass media consumer who has no clue about what qualifications ship navigators need and what equipment is on board tankers and other ships.

1) GPS is not the EXCLUSIVE tool for ship navigation. Tankers have radar and can determine the positions of ships around them.

2) It is a requirement that ships be able to operate without fancy equipment. That is, visually. This narrow section of the Gulf offers plenty of visual clues such as the Iranian coast. Territorial waters are 7 nautical miles. It is very easy to see Iranian land from this distance. If there is any doubt as toward which coast the ship is headed, look at the other coast it would be invisible being over 50 km away. And there is plenty of other ship traffic going in and out of the Gulf. If the tanker crew was somehow being jammed to the point they could not even use their radar, they would not have b-lined for Iranian waters since the overall ship traffic route is parallel to the Iranian coast.

What is not confusing is that Iranian commandos seized a ship in international waters. There is video of them doing a rappel from a helicopter onto the deck of the tanker. The proper use of crew served machine guns could discourage such piracy in the future. Pirates deserve a pirates death.

The latest from Iran is they want to charge a toll to every ship transiting the straight. We are going to need a crap load of dimes if that is the case.

dissident wrote:The latest propaganda BS from the chihuahua statelet known as the UK is that Russia confused the tanker with GPS jamming. This crap is for the typical ignorant mass media consumer who has no clue about what qualifications ship navigators need and what equipment is on board tankers and other ships.

1) GPS is not the EXCLUSIVE tool for ship navigation. Tankers have radar and can determine the positions of ships around them.

2) It is a requirement that ships be able to operate without fancy equipment. That is, visually. This narrow section of the Gulf offers plenty of visual clues such as the Iranian coast. Territorial waters are 7 nautical miles. It is very easy to see Iranian land from this distance. If there is any doubt as toward which coast the ship is headed, look at the other coast it would be invisible being over 50 km away. And there is plenty of other ship traffic going in and out of the Gulf. If the tanker crew was somehow being jammed to the point they could not even use their radar, they would not have b-lined for Iranian waters since the overall ship traffic route is parallel to the Iranian coast.

Everything you say is true however it is not always practiced. The prime example is the recent spate of destroyer collisions. Less in the general news but there are times when the professional mariners just screw up. Some nitwit in the med ran into a anchored ship. A Russian ran into a suspension bridge in SK. Given the amount of traffic these incidents are not frequent, but they do happen.

Remember there were on 23 crew aboard. That’s only 7 per shift. Not all of them are on the bridge. It’s common at sea for there to be a single person on the bridge although in this subject area on would think they would have more.

Just saying sometimes shit happens. Should not but does.

I would not take Iran's word for anything concerning the seizure of now two British owned tankers. Or the bombing of four other oil tankers a month ago. They are desperate to end the sanctions against them. They think by threatening the free flow of oil that everyone will simply surrender and give into them. That isn't happening, at least from the USA point of view. Unfortunately, they will have to suffer a lot of economic pain in the mean time.

For once Trump has shown he can keep his mouth shut when needed.

France, Italy and Denmark gave initial support for a British plan for a European-led naval mission to ensure safe shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, three senior EU diplomats said on Tuesday after Iran’s seizure of a British-flagged tanker.

The backing at a meeting of EU envoys in Brussels contrasts sharply with the lukewarm response shown by European allies to a similar American call first voiced at NATO in late June, when countries feared they could make U.S.-Iranian tensions worse.

https://gcaptain.com/britain-wins-early ... l-mission/

Additional story below

https://gcaptain.com/europeans-plan-nav ... sian-gulf/

I hope the EU understands that they may actually have to use those guns on their warships. But I wish them good hunting.

Maybe they can channel Nelson’s spirit.

An investment into a "Q" ship would be somewhat hilarious to watch, especially if this was live streamed as the Iranians try to board a ship fully capable of raining down some steel on them. Even a .50 caliber M2 Browning can ruin your day in the hands of a well trained Royal Marine crew.

Q Ship

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-ship

A Q-ship would appear to be an easy target, but in fact carried hidden armaments. A typical Q-ship might resemble a tramp steamer sailing alone in an area where a U-boat was reported to be operating. By seeming to be a suitable target for the U-boat's deck gun, a Q-ship might encourage the U-boat captain to make a surface attack rather than use one of his limited number of torpedoes. The Q-ships' cargoes were light wood (balsa or cork) or wooden casks, so that even if torpedoed they would remain afloat, encouraging the U-boat to surface to sink them with a deck gun. There might also be pretense of "abandoning ship" with some crew dressed as civilian mariners taking to a boat. Once the U-boat was vulnerable, the Q-ship's panels would drop to reveal the deck guns, which would immediately open fire.

There have been certain ships off Yemen that were headquarters for mercenaries. A ship approaching pirate laden waters would pick up a defensive crew from the HQ ship. No idea of the logistics, how the mercenaries would get back to the HQ ship, maybe get a return out of Suez? Even some recreational yachtsmen would pick up a crew of 2 for the journey.

But also ships operating in these regions sometimes (often?) have “safe rooms” constructed where the crew can go and exist when being over taken. The. They just sit and await military intervention behind bullet proof walls. Or so the story goes.

I would imagine the insurance companies would have a word or two to say about all this.

Attached article details some of the maneuvers being made to keep Iranian oil flowing. Sounds like they are a bit desperate.

https://gcaptain.com/flags-of-inconveni ... -shipping/

And another good story tying recent ship seizures together.

By Leonid Bershidsky (Bloomberg Opinion) –The seizure of a number of ships in recent months tells an uncomfortable story. In today’s multi-polar world, countries can grab other nations’ vessels and get away with it.

It’s not just Iran’s detention of the U.K.-flagged Stena Impero in retaliation for the seizure of one its own tankers by Britain. In recent months, other incidents have occurred that had nothing to do with smuggling or fishing disputes, the standard reasons for vessels to be stopped and held by governments. These detentions are geopolitical in nature.

Well, Bolton have been (rather unexpectedly) "trumped".
So war with Iran is now unlikely.
Or do you think otherwise?

Good firing. Bolton never saw a war he didn't want to jump into feet first. A war with Iran was never likely with or without Bolton around.

EnergyUnlimited wrote:Well, Bolton have been (rather unexpectedly) "trumped".
So war with Iran is now unlikely.
Or do you think otherwise?

War is as close as the Iranians blowing up or seizing more oil tankers in the Straits of Hormuz. Or the Iranians could trigger off a war with Israel by firing more missiles into Israel, either directly or through their proxies in Hezbollah and Syria. Or the Saudis could go nuclear to counteract the Iranians going nuclear, and that could trigger off conflict.

Trump removing Bolton does nothing to diminish the terrorism and worse coming from the Islamic fanatics in Iran.

Cheers!

Plantagenet wrote:

EnergyUnlimited wrote:Well, Bolton have been (rather unexpectedly) "trumped".
So war with Iran is now unlikely.
Or do you think otherwise?

War is as close as the Iranians blowing up or seizing more oil tankers in the Straits of Hormuz. Or the Iranians could trigger off a war with Israel by firing more missiles into Israel, either directly or through their proxies in Hezbollah and Syria. Or the Saudis could go nuclear to counteract the Iranians going nuclear, and that could trigger off conflict.

Trump removing Bolton does nothing to diminish the terrorism and worse coming from the Islamic fanatics in Iran.

Cheers!

Demented nonsense. Iran is not blowing up and seizing oil tankers. It is the UK that is acting like a collection of pirates for hire. That Iran retaliates is fully legitimate. Bitchy UK hypocrites should learn how to act like civilized people.

dissident wrote: Iran is not blowing up and seizing oil tankers.

Of course they are.

iran-oil-tanker-attacks-in-the-strait-of-hormuz

Get it now?

Cheers!

Plantagenet wrote:Get it now?

What I "get" is you running defense for the republicans as always. International relations are a result of a series of interactions, just like any relationship, and the Trump administration has been part and parcel of facilitating Iran's shift to a further hardline stance.