Iran Watch...

Post by **adam2** » 01 Jul 2019, 12:19

Iran now looks closer to obtaining a nuclear bomb.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-48784786

Once they have the bomb, I fear that they will use it, or more likely will supply the weapon to a terrorist group who will use it.

After the Bomb has been used, there will no doubt be a lot of hand wringing and enquiring as to how we let that happen.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 01 Jul 2019, 17:48

The reason they intended to breach the agreed limit was because the US broke the agreement, and imposed yet more sanctions. Thatâ€™s technically an act of war. Possibly because of a nudge by a certain nearby country that frequently attacks their neighbours, and tries to blame the ones attacked. In this case the supposedly â€œminedâ€� tankers, which seemed to have photos of holes above the waterline. Maybe a mossad job.

It is far more likely the US, or its little local master, will use a nuclear bomb. Or they will engineer an attack move to make it look like they are using a nuclear weapon in an attempt to provoke a nuclear response. Then use that as an excuse to retalliate with a nuclear weapon.

Good game eh? Everybody loses.

Countries now wrecked are Lybia, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and I think, Sudan, there is just Iran left on Boltonâ€™s and Pompeoâ€™s list to go. Seven countries in five years. OK so it took a bit longer...................

When they had the US/Iran war games, the Iranians used devious tactics like motorcycle messengers, and made the US look silly...........more.......

raspberry-blower · Post by **raspberry-blower** » 01 Jul 2019, 20:57

No, Iran did NOT break the JCPOA

The Dispute Resolution Mechanism in paragraph 36 of the JCPOA states:

If the issue still has not been resolved [by the joint commission] to the satisfaction of the complaining participant, and if the complaining participant deems the issue to constitute significant non-performance, then that participant could treat the unresolved issue as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part and/or notify the UN Security Council that it believes the issue constitutes significant non-performance.

This legal argument is even stronger than the argument under paragraph 26 discussed above.

Post by **adam2** » 11 Jul 2019, 12:09

Reports state that Iranian boats tried to impede the passage of a UK registered oil tanker in international waters near Iran.
They were repelled by a British Navy ship.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48946051

Potemkin Villager · Post by **Potemkin Villager** » 11 Jul 2019, 18:48

I am trying to get my head around how a few small boats could impede the passage of an enormous oil tanker.

Post by **adam2** » 11 Jul 2019, 20:05

Potemkin Villager wrote:I am trying to get my head around how a few small boats could impede the passage of an enormous oil tanker.

By firing on it, of threatening to do so. The Iranian boats are equipped with heavy machine guns, and may well carry Carl Gustaf/Gustav or similar shoulder launched missiles that can sink a ship.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 11 Jul 2019, 20:45

I don't believe a single solitary word of it

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 11 Jul 2019, 21:28

Neither do I.

raspberry-blower · Post by **raspberry-blower** » 11 Jul 2019, 22:12

A more plausible explanation

Moon of Alabama: Iran keeps calm while US and UK continue their provocations

Of interest is also that the ship turned off its AIS signal, see the dotted line, during its passage through the Hormuz Strait.

CNN also noted that:

On July 10, the ship turned off its transponders for almost 24 hours, making it undetectable by radars. When it switched on its transponders at around 1pm Eastern Time, it appeared to have sailed through the Persian Gulf escorted by the HMS Montrose.

Turning of the AIS in a high traffic area and especially at night is quite dangerous. The AIS signals a ships type, speed and course and other ships use that data to plan their own course. But even without AIS the ship will still be visible on the Iranian surveillance radars that control the Hormuz Strait. A ship on the radar screen without AIS information would be suspicious.

So why would the British ship do that? Was that an attempt to draw special attention to it from the Iranian coast guard or military?

To me it seems that the empty British crude carrier, which was shadowed by a British frigate, was used as bait. There were probably Royal Marines on board waiting for an Iranian attempt to seize the ship. Iran did not fall for it.

An attempt at creating another "Gulf of Tonkin incident" - which itself never happened - has flopped.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 11 Jul 2019, 23:16

Far more plausible.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 12 Jul 2019, 03:13

Potemkin Villager · Post by **Potemkin Villager** » 12 Jul 2019, 09:29

Phew it was good job plucky HMS Montrose just happened to be so close by when those pesky Iranians attempted to hijack an empty oil tanker leaving the gulf!

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 12 Jul 2019, 12:40

It had probably just delivered some. The Saudis are getting short you know what with Peak Oil and all that.

Post by **adam2** » 19 Jul 2019, 19:16

Latest reports state that Iran has captured a UK registered oil tanker, a serious escalation in my view.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49053383 Edited to add link.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 19 Jul 2019, 20:37

Second tanker has been taken

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/b ... r-18367142

This is a big mistake by Iran. This will radically change public opinion in the west. Trump is going to hit them hard.