After British Commandos Seize Oil Tanker, Iran Accuses UK of Committing 'Maritime Piracy' on Behalf of US
Ever notice how the UN is used by the West whenever it is convenient and ignored whenever it is not? Most of the real power in the world is so far out of sight that all I get to do is speculate on just how in the hell things work. Oh well, there is job security in that–just no income.
“Excellent news: UK has detained the supertanker Grace I laden with Iranian oil bound for Syria in violation of EU sanctions. America & our allies will continue to prevent regimes in Tehran & Damascus from profiting off this illicit trade.”
So said the arch war mongering hypocrite: Since when has the US America been adverse itself to profiting from illicit trade starting with the illicit trade in black human flesh? And then the illicit trade in stolen land?
Here we go again.
Libya wanted to sell its oil in currencies other than the US dollar. They were invaded in mere months after that.
Iraq wanted to sell its oil in Euros . It was invaded shortly after that attempt.
Now Iran HAS been selling its oil in Rupees , Rubles and possibly other currencies and well, you know the rest.
One if the great crimes if the 21st century is the blatant subverting of the UN. We know why, of course. The US regards its own laws as optional. Meanwhile, international laws are an irrelevance to the “world’s policeman”. When there is nobody trustworthy to uphold the law, everyone is at risk.
Thanks for bringing this to our awareness. We, including our youth must join the fight for peace and for the environment–the two are connected.
An act of piracy; a direct act of war.
The EU displays it little more then a tool of the Corporations contrary to claims made that it some sort of entity wishing little more then peace and prosperity as it tries to defend peoples rights.
If Russia declared trade sanctions against England, could Russia seize a boat on the high seas bound for England or would that be deemed an act of war.?
The EU has NO LEGAL authority to force an Iran or an India or a Cuba or a Canada or an Iceland to recognize trade sanctions the EU might have against another Country. This is little more than thuggery and it an act of war.
Puzzled here. Geography seems to be playing tricks on me.
Is this Iranian oil? And the tanker is east of Gibraltar when picked up? So it didn’t come through the Suez? Does that mean it went all the way around the cape of Africa to take oil to a Syrian port on the Mediterranean coast? Why wouldn’t Iran simply ship it overland to Syria since the countries share a border?
Somebody please explain for me.
For years I thought the threat of war with Iran has been a ploy to keep Americans, Iranians, and anybody with an once of sense so mesmerized by sheer terror that they will continue to be impotent in the face of American aggression & totalitarianism.
But a ploy nonetheless. I genuinely thought that the Pentagon, being comprised of semi-educated bullies, was essentially a cathedral of cowardice: they only went after ‘easy’ targets.
But $h!t like this makes me reconsider. Maybe 19 years into the forever war, they are so far off the rails that war with Iran seems plausible.
Yes it went around the Cape of Good Hope to avoid Suez because that would be closely monitored and require temporarily offloading some of its oil. Shipping 2 million barrels of oil overland is impossible.
Apart from everything else, this shows why Jeremy Corbyn must be elected Prime Minister, so the UK stops playing its poodle-like role in supporting U.S. aggression.
Thanks for the info.
Guilty as charged. Get a rope.
After seeing clips from the ‘The 4th of Trump Celebration’ yesterday, it is not surprising the stars and stripes have been replaced by a skull and crossbones flag.
The Brits are now privateer toadies acting on behalf of the new empire. Pathetic how low they have come …
Still begs a couple of questions:
- are there no pipelines, ever? or were they bombed?
- are there no truck convoys, or (as above) do they get bombed?
- if the Iranian tanker gets to a Syrian port would they not be in danger of being bombed?
There is a pattern there, if only I could scratch my head hard enough.
Maybe they could entice a US pipeline company to build one between Syria and Iran, instead of the US and Canada. Would Trump fund it? Maybe if they put a wall on either side of a pipeline.
Was trying to get those US revolutionary war airports in here somewhere too but …
It’s actually worse than that. Bolton has said publicly in the past when he was assigned there, that the UN should do whatever the US wants around the world, because the US is the main funding source for it. All of the neo-cons are on board with this logic, and consider the UN an extension of their screwed up foreign policy. The UN is petrified of the US, we can expect no relief from US aggression around the world from the UN.
Now can we strap parachutes on Bolton and Pompeo, and kick their asses out of the plane over Tehran? Please? I’ll pack the chutes, I promise (he says with fingers crossed) :)))
There is no pipeline, not even a gas pipeline. Efforts to build one were stillborn years ago. Trucks and convoys would be too small and Iraq would not permit them.
Syria and Iran do not share a border.
The next question is; Can a super tanker that big go through the Suez canal?
Make no mistake, this one (Iran) will be different. The American people will be directly involved, and American targets here at home will be hit. Iran has a network of proxies around the world, they will retaliate on US soil. That doesn’t even take into consideration whether Russia and/or China will come to their aid, a very real possibility.