Tanker War Redux

[Josh]

If you want something to end, you don't react to it ship by ship. You put the hurt on someone where they live. Maybe its just blowing up a few boats pier side, but it is far easier to be offensively deterrent than defensive everywhere at all times. Blow something up to let them know there are consequences. Don't take responsibility for it, they will know who did it.

[JasonJ]

If you want something to end, you don't react to it ship by ship. You put the hurt on someone where they live. Maybe its just blowing up a few boats pier side, but it is far easier to be offensively deterrent than defensive everywhere at all times. Blow something up to let them know there are consequences. Don't take responsibility for it, they will know who did it.

 

On July 26th, an Iranian tanker sank in the Caspian Sea. Just coincidence? Or could it be like that?

 

 

General cargo ship SHABAHANG issued distress signal at around 1400 KT (0900 UTC) Jul 26 in Caspian sea in Azerbaijan waters of Lankaran port, while en route from Anzali Iran, to Makhachkala Russia, with cargo of tiles. The ship reported water ingress, sinking. Azerbaijan MRCC coordinated rescue operation, two helicopters and patrol boat were sent to rescue 9 crew. By 1222 UTC the ship sank, all 9 crew were rescued, no injures reported. The cause of water ingress yet unknown.

General cargo ship SHABAHANG, IMO 8869787, dwt 599, built 1993, flag Iran, manager ALSARROUD GENERAL TRADING LLC, UAE (EQUASIS).

 

https://maritimebulletin.net/2019/07/27/iranian-cargo-ship-sank-in-caspian-sea-crew-rescued/

[Nobu]

If you want something to end, you don't react to it ship by ship. You put the hurt on someone where they live. Maybe its just blowing up a few boats pier side, but it is far easier to be offensively deterrent than defensive everywhere at all times. Blow something up to let them know there are consequences. Don't take responsibility for it, they will know who did it.

 

Interestingly, this appears to be characteristic of the Iranian playbook at the moment, as despite having a weaker hand, they have managed to maintain their balance while keeping their opponents off theirs.

[JasonJ]

Boris pressured to invite Russia and China for the escort missions.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1158686/iran-crisis-britain-war-fears-russia-china-boris-johnson

 

Well China is no threat afterall. Japan should send SDF to Europe to protect the UK and Baltics from Russia as the UK patrols in the ME with China. Russia would of course decline to patrol with the UK.

[JasonJ]

China is not a threat. Just let them have Taiwan. Then Japan won't have to worry about whether or not to assist Taiwan and can pay attention to more important things such as helping the UK deal with Russia in Europe. Right?

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201907/25/WS5d38eafba310d83056400d99.html

[Nobu]

There is no enduring threat of state sponsored piracy in the SoH. When the current crisis is over, in weeks or months, business as usual will return, and the escorts will go back to their usual duties of preparing for the next crisis.

The enduring threat will be state sponsored lawfare in various ways, however. The tit for tat in that arena will probably continue.

[Stuart Galbraith]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-and-uk-divide-increases-on-iran/ar-AAEYajl?li=BBnb7Kz

 

Britain's refusal to go along with the Trump administration's fiery approach to recent Iranian aggression has experts and lawmakers concerned about the state of the "special relationship" between two historically close allies.

 

The United Kingdom on Monday shunned the United States' call for a multi-nation effort to protect non-Iranian ships in the Persian Gulf, despite the fact that the country had its own oil tanker seized in the region.

The country instead opted for an increase in its military presence in the region, a troubling development to those who have long worked on and tracked the relationship between the two NATO allies.

"It's a terrible sign that the U.S. and its closest allies can't work together on something this basic," said Ilan Goldenberg, a former State Department official who is now a Middle East and Iran expert with Center for a New American Security.

And the U.S. similarly hasn't seemed too inclined to come to Britain's aid. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Thursday said the responsibility "falls to the United Kingdom to take care of their ships," during a Fox News interview.

"That says something about where we are in those relationships right now," Goldenberg said.

Goldenberg, who was in London earlier this week and spoke to U.S. and British government officials firsthand, said there is a fear among allies in partnering with the United States to counter Iranian aggression. The worry, he said, was "of getting dragged into military conflict because of the United States."

 

 

'France and Germany have also balked at any show of military strength in the Gulf. The UK had sought the help of both countries for a British-led mission to defend shipping in the waterways. While the nations have voiced political support for the UK, so far they have not committed to providing the needed naval forces over concerns of escalating tensions, the Financial Times reported.

Newly sworn in Defense Secretary Mark Esper on Wednesday seemed to concede that the U.S. may be going it alone on Operation Sentinel for the time being.

"We will escort our ships to the degree the threat requires it," Esper told reporters at the Pentagon.

Esper also seemed to downplay the UK's decision to demur on the U.S.-led operation in favor of a European headed military presence in the Gulf, saying that any such deployments would be "complementary" to the U.S. operation, with the coordinated goal of deterring provocative actions from Iran.

The hesitation to join the U.S. in the naval patrol indicates a growing distance between the U.S. and its allies how to go about addressing Iranian aggression, according to Jon Alterman a global security expert with Center for Strategic and International Studies think-tank.

"In a previous era, uncertainty in the Gulf would cause countries to line up behind the United States," Alterman told The Hill.

But uncertainty about U.S. intentions and doubts that Washington would come to the aid of allies who have been attacked is driving a very different reaction.

"It's partly fear of being drawn into U.S. action against Iran and partly they fear eliciting an Iranian action as punishment for their association with the United States and getting no American support. That's a lose-lose situation," Alterman told The Hill.

Goldenberg, meanwhile, said he found it "disturbing" that with such a crisis involving the British, "the instinct is to distance themselves from the United States, even though the United States is the country most capable of protecting these shipping lanes."

House Foreign Affairs Committee member Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) said he's worried it may signal a divide on how the U.S. and its allies address the Iran situation.

"I do think it sends a bad signal if it's true, but I hope they're not making that decision," Kinzinger said of the UK's decision to defer on Operation Sentinel. "I think maybe with the new prime minister they'll rethink that, because the more we can protect each other the better."

"They're worried that if they do something like freedom of navigation operation, purportedly to protect British ships, if something goes wrong, there's a conflict, now they're being dragged in by the United States," Goldenberg told The Hill.

The Trump administration's "America First" policy also makes allies resistant to back U.S. efforts in Iran because they are unsure the United States would come to their aid in the event of a larger conflict. Indeed, Pompeo also said that while the U.S. military has a role in monitoring activity in the Strait of Hormuz, "the world has a big role in this, too, to keep these sea lanes open."

 

 

And right there we have the sum of the problem. America wants allies that back it, but doesn't want to back them.

[JasonJ]

Iran launched a medium-range BM. The trajectory was within Iran territory, traveling about 1,000km.

 

 

 

DUBAI (Reuters) - Iran said on Saturday missile tests were part of its defensive needs and were not directed against any country, after Washington said Tehran had test-fired a medium-range missile.

A U.S. defense official said Iran tested what appeared to be a medium-range ballistic missile on Wednesday that traveled about 1,000 km (620 miles), adding that the test did not pose a threat to shipping or U.S. personnel in the region.

“An informed source at the armed forces staff said Iran’s missile tests are natural within its defensive needs. This missile capacity is not against any country, and only aims to respond to possible aggression,” Iranian news agencies reported.

“Iran does not need the permission of any power in the world for its self-defense,” the reports quoted the military source as saying.

U.S. President Donald Trump pulled out of an international agreement on Iran’s nuclear program last year and stepped up sanctions on Tehran.

He said the nuclear deal was flawed because it did not include curbs on Iran’s development of ballistic missiles or its support for proxies in Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and Iraq.

Iran has ruled out talks with Washington over its military capabilities, particularly the missile program that it says is defensive. It denies the missiles are capable of being tipped with nuclear warheads and says its nuclear program is peaceful.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-iran-missiles/iran-missile-tests-defensive-fars-news-agency-cites-iranian-military-source-as-saying-idUSKCN1UM0D7

[Jeff]

 

And right there we have the sum of the problem. America wants allies that back it, but doesn't want to back them.

 

Or, the UK and other nations, particularly EU nations, won't follow the American's lead on treating Iran like the outlaw nation it is and so leave America to handle it alone. That's their choice. Then when Iran behaves like Iran, they expect America to carry 90% of the cost and risk to protect their shipping. Trump has made it clear we are willing to be the big dog but only if the rest of the pack carries their fair share. If other nations will only pay for a small regional navy then they'd better be prepared for the rougher nations to steal their milk money whenever they want. If the EU is utterly incapable of defending their PG shipping then they'd better come up with an alternative to PG oil or be prepared to pay ever increasing Danegeld to the mullahs. If they choose to fund, build, man and use navies that can adequately carry their weight with the Americans then everyone would be in a better place.

[Chris Werb]

 

 

And right there we have the sum of the problem. America wants allies that back it, but doesn't want to back them.

 

Or, the UK and other nations, particularly EU nations, won't follow the American's lead on treating Iran like the outlaw nation it is and so leave America to handle it alone. That's their choice. Then when Iran behaves like Iran, they expect America to carry 90% of the cost and risk to protect their shipping. Trump has made it clear we are willing to be the big dog but only if the rest of the pack carries their fair share. If other nations will only pay for a small regional navy then they'd better be prepared for the rougher nations to steal their milk money whenever they want. If the EU is utterly incapable of defending their PG shipping then they'd better come up with an alternative to PG oil or be prepared to pay ever increasing Danegeld to the mullahs. If they choose to fund, build, man and use navies that can adequately carry their weight with the Americans then everyone would be in a better place.

 

 

That would be my choice, long term. It's not just oil but LNG though. In fact change it to "They'd better come up with alternatives to fossil derived hydrocarbons in general"

[Stuart Galbraith]

Here is the problem I have with all this. Its perfectly right that America is distinctly irritated by Iran's support for terrorism. On that one, no argument all. We should have zero tolerance on that.

 

This has become conflated with the nuclear deal which I believe, personally, was a totally different thing. After all, all through the cold war we did arms deals with the Soviets, at the same time as doing everything we could to nobble the regime and rollback communism. There was no either/or there, and there shouldnt be now.

 

This WAS different in that the deal was supposed to enfranchise Iran, at the same time as limiting their nuclear program. So im not surprised this eventually fell over. But at the same time, Europe gets middle eastern terrorism anyway. What we tend to lack are people who may well use nuclear weapons on us, or supply them to terrorists. A far greater threat from our perspective. It is for Israel too, though they have become rather more fixated by the terrorism angle. Terrorism wont destroy israel, but nuclear weapons might.

 

In short, its an absolute bloody mess. I endorse the American efforts to end Iranian terrorism, but I don't believe that enfranchising Iran's means to get an atomic bomb was a good way to do it. And I do honestly think if America IS going to kick over all its deals, it probably wants to spend a little more time thinking how its enemies are going to react first, rather than assume they are going to instantly capitulate and make a deal. Anyone who spent any time reading what Iran did in the 1980's knew they wouldn't do that. So if it was worth doing, why not park a navy in their front yard first, rather than act all surprised they behave like a wounded viper?

 

As for spending more on navies, absolutely goddamned right. No argument here. Against that you have to weigh the fact your own navy has disposed of all its truly excellent range of frigates and replaced them with a hightech underarmed rowboat. We have ALL made mistakes in this area, and collectively we all need to do better. The key word is 'Collectively'. Europe cant be a substitute for US firepower, and the US can no longer do all the heavy lifting. It never should.

Edited July 29, 2019 by Stuart Galbraith

[Nobu]

When it comes to deal making in the current U.S. administration, Trump's rules apply above all, as this is the one area in which he is motivated by expertise. Allies and their actions are bargaining chips, to be used as needed.

[Chris Werb]

Stuart, what is this navy parked in Iran's front yard going to do that land based air or SLCMs couldn't?

[Colin]

Escort tankers

[Stuart Galbraith]

Stuart, what is this navy parked in Iran's front yard going to do that land based air or SLCMs couldn't?

 

Deter. Why is iran going to be deterred by aircraft and SLCM's that it cant see? You park a CVBG in their front yard, and fly up and down their borders, it focuses minds. Carriers always have.

 

I dont want to fight Iran, this is the point im trying to get across. Its far cheaper to avoid wars by deterring them than actually fighting them. We deploy no firepower to the Persian Gulf, precipitate a crisis, you have all the conditions you need for a war to happen. Which at a low level, it already has.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Britain rejects a swap.

 

http://en.rfi.fr/wire/20190729-britain-rules-out-seized-tanker-swap-iran

 

Britain on Monday ruled out swapping seized oil tankers with Iran as a second UK warship arrived in the Gulf to conduct convoys that have irritated Tehran.

A sense of crisis in the world's busiest oil shipping lane has been building up for weeks as Iran responds to US President Donald Trump's "maximum pressure" campaign.

The US economic sanctions and stepped-up military presence are designed to force Iran to renegotiate a landmark 2015 nuclear pact from which Trump pulled out last year.

Britain further outraged Iran by seizing one of its tankers -- the Grace 1 -- on July 4 on suspicion of it carrying oil to Syria in violation of EU sanctions.

Iran vowed to retaliate and its Revolutionary Guards stormed and detained the UK-flagged Stena Impero and its 23 crew as they sailed through the Strait of Hormuz on July 20.

New British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab flatly rejected the idea of the two tankers being exchanged or simultaneously released in a bid to dial back the tensions.

"There is no quid pro quo," Raab told BBC radio.

"This is not about some kind of barter. This is about international law and the rules of the international legal system being upheld," he said.

"That is what we will insist on."

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani had hinted earlier that he was open to a tanker swap.

- 'Geopolitical tussle' -

Iran said on Sunday that its ship's seizure was also a violation of the 2015 nuclear pact that Britain co-signed and is trying to keep alive with EU allies.

Its remaining participants met in Vienna over the weekend for heated talks that also saw Iran lash out at Britain's proposal for European nations to lead a naval and air Gulf escort mission.

Britain's HMS Montrose frigate began helping UK-flagged tankers enter into and out of the Gulf last week.

Its naval presence near Iran grew to two with the arrival on Sunday of the HMS Duncan destroyer -- the most advanced warship Britain currently has.

The UK defence ministry said the two will conduct escorts together for the next month.

The Montrose will then go in for scheduled maintenance and be replaced by the HMS Kent frigate later this year.

"Freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz is vital not just to the UK, but also our international partners and allies," UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said.

Yet Britain's European force proposal is running up one already being prepared by the United States.

Both plans have strongly angered Tehran.

Iranian government spokesman Ali Rabiei said on Sunday that the proposed European fleet "carries a hostile message, is provocative and will increase tensions".

Britain's Raab said London was still insisting on a European force -- despite the potential conflict with Washington.

"This shouldn’t be some sort of geopolitical, EU versus US tussle," he said in the radio interview.

"It should be (about) what puts us in the best position with the widest group of international actors to uphold the rule of law."

He added that "it would be important for the European-led initiative to have US support to make it viable".

European nations have responded to Britain's proposal with caution.

Edited July 29, 2019 by Stuart Galbraith

[Josh]

For the best. That would only encourage them.

[Stuart Galbraith]

I just hope we arent saying that for public consumption, then going to do a deal behind the scenes. We were going to give the Grace 1 back even before they seized the British tanker, so in that regard it might be going ahead as programmed. We shall see.

[Nobu]

Iranian government spokesman Ali Rabiei said on Sunday that the proposed European fleet "carries a hostile message, is provocative and will increase tensions".

 

European fleets do tend to do that, don't they.

 

Tehran may want to think about giving London the no quid pro quo it wants in exchange for a diplomatic deescalation.

[Jeff]

Gunboat diplomacy has always sent a message to tinpot bullies and tyrants. The sticky part is that they have to be convinced you have the will to use it, otherwise...

[DKTanker]

If you're dumb enough to pull a gun, you have to be smart enough to pull the trigger.

[glenn239]

I just hope we arent saying that for public consumption, then going to do a deal behind the scenes. We were going to give the Grace 1 back even before they seized the British tanker, so in that regard it might be going ahead as programmed. We shall see.

 

I don't quite understand the timing of the seizure of the Iranian tanker. Was this the first one that tried to go past Gibraltar? I assume May and Boris agreed on this action at the time?

[Stuart Galbraith]

It has nothing to do with Boris Johnson. He was only a candidate for the post of Prime Minister at the time. Hunt was the one actually managing the day to day running of it.

[Stuart Galbraith]

https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2019/iran-190730-irna01.htm

Tehran, July 30, IRNA -- Iran's Navy force is preparing to conduct a joint naval exercise with Russia in the north of Indian Ocean and Oman Sea, the Army's public relations department said on Tuesday.

Concurrent with the attendance of Admiral Hossein Khanzadi in the Russian Army Navy Day ceremony in St. Petersburg, some local media mistakenly misunderstood the remarks of the Navy commander on Iran-Russia joint naval exercise reading that a joint naval exercise between the two countries will be conducted in the Persian Gulf region.

According to the Navy Public Relations Department, in light of the meeting and dialogue held by Admiral Hussein Khanzadi with the Commander of the Russian Navy, Iran is preparing to conduct a naval exercise between the two navies in the north of Indian Ocean and Oman.

A joint Iranian-Russian naval exercise will be held in the north of Indian Ocean and Oman Sea, the commander of the Army's Navy, who traveled to St. Petersburg for a Russian Navy Day ceremony, said in an interview with IRNA.

Admiral Hussein Khanzadi, noting that the exercise is to be held on the basis of an agreement with the Russian Navy.

The two countries have reached agreement in the Indian Ocean and Oman Sea, and Iran hopes it will be held by the end of this current Iranian year (starting in March 21), he said.

According to the Navy commander, coordination and planning sessions will begin soon.

The commander of the Islamic Republic of Iran's Navy, who has traveled to Russia at the head of a high-level military delegation, attended on Sunday at Russian Navy Day celebration in St. Petersburg, in presence of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

[Nobu]

The timing may not have been entirely on London's schedule, but Washington's.

 

As far as naval exercises between Russia and Iran, they reduce America's freedom to escalate, but do not eliminate.

 

If you're dumb enough to pull a gun, you have to be smart enough to pull the trigger.

 

Words to live by.