Iran Seizes Tanker - Are They Trying to Provoke Trump?

[Harry Bosch]

Its just another case of double standards for the powerful.

China does the similar things in the South China Sea (why do we call it that anyway?) , but nobody, not even China does it like the US. Go to the other side of the planet with the most powerful and threatening navy on earth, spout a bunch of aggressive rhetoric, and then complain nations there are being aggressive towards your ships? Really?

China is far far worse. Yes, the US bullies some countries. China wants to conquer some countries and take over their land.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The US should't be there to begin with. I don't see how you can blame Iran for this, or for shooting down the drone. It amazes me how the US accuses Iran of being aggressive, while the US puts military bases and assets all around Iran. Imagine if Iran had a base in Quebec and in Cuba.

Iran has been highly belligerent for the entire existence of the current regime and has committed multiple acts of war against the US, even at it's very start. Why blame us for having bases in the area?

Because not one of those acts of war against the US has occurred within ten thousand km of the USA?

What difference does that make?

This whole spat is because Iran wants to close the gulf--something that will have major effects on the world economy. (And note that Putin would love it as they are an oil exporter.)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Iran has reportedly seized a British Tanker now. And the stakes are raised a bit in Trump's Operation I Have No Fucking Clue What I'm Doing. I wish I could say he was stumbling from one stupid thing to the other, but I think saying he is "stumbling" would be a compliment for him. Conservatives in UK are currently voting for the new PM of which the winner is to be announced on the 23rd. I can't help but think this was intentional on Iran's part to help muddle things even more.

Nothing good has come from Trump and his Administration in dealing with Iran. Since leaving the agreement, Iran is working on Uranium enrichment, downed a US drone, and is fucking with ships in the Strait of Hormuz. The US has benefited from leaving the agreement in the following ways... *crickets*.

ETA: Might be a second one today, a Liberian ship.

 

[bilby]

Because not one of those acts of war against the US has occurred within ten thousand km of the USA?

What difference does that make?

This whole spat is because Iran wants to close the gulf--something that will have major effects on the world economy. (And note that Putin would love it as they are an oil exporter.)

There's a big difference between someone complaining about being attacked by their enemy in their own street; and somebody going to their enemy's house, making aggressive noises outside their front gate, and then complaining about being attacked.

If you go and camp out right outside their home, when you have no particular reason to be there, then that's clearly provocative, even if you obey the letter of the law and remain on public land.

America may not be breaking any laws, but we can all see that you are acting like an asshole, and needlessly goading a nation that has kept its temper far better than your nation did, given similar provocation.

If Iran treated US shipping in the Gulf, the same way that the US treated Soviet and Cuban shipping in international waters during the missile crisis, there would be no question that the US would engage in a full on war against them.

Iran is being extremely restrained. The US is known not to show anything close to that level of restraint; She is a bully who takes a needlessly aggressive stance, knowing that she has the might to win any resulting fight.

Your country needs to stop behaving like an asshole. Though given your current government, this doesn't seem likely to happen any time soon.

 

[Derec]

Iran is being extremely restrained.

Wrong. Iran has been extremely belligerent ever since the theocratic usurpers took power in 1979.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Iran is being extremely restrained.

Wrong. Iran has been extremely belligerent ever since the theocratic usurpers took power in 1979.

Getting invaded by US-backed Iraq was a clear act of belligerence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Iran is being extremely restrained.

Wrong. Iran has been extremely belligerent ever since the theocratic usurpers took power in 1979.

Getting invaded by US-backed Iraq was a clear act of belligerence.

The US-backed attack from Iraq was a response to Iranian belligerence.

 

[Patooka]

Getting invaded by US-backed Iraq was a clear act of belligerence.

The US-backed attack from Iraq was a response to Iranian belligerence.

That's a very good point. Iran has no reason to habour any resentment towards the United States. The United states has never been antagonistic towards Iran. Iran is just using this as an excuse to be belligerent.

Edit: Don't know why why post came out like this. Apologies.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Getting invaded by US-backed Iraq was a clear act of belligerence.

The US-backed attack from Iraq was a response to Iranian belligerence.

Throwing out a US backed dictatorship was clearly an attack on the US.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Getting invaded by US-backed Iraq was a clear act of belligerence.

The US-backed attack from Iraq was a response to Iranian belligerence.

That's a very good point. Iran has no reason to habour any resentment towards the United States. The United states has never been antagonistic towards Iran. Iran is just using this as an excuse to be belligerent.

Edit: Don't know why why post came out like this. Apologies.

Odd, for some reason I want to play a game of solitaire right now.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Getting invaded by US-backed Iraq was a clear act of belligerence.

The US-backed attack from Iraq was a response to Iranian belligerence.

That's a very good point. Iran has no reason to habour any resentment towards the United States. The United states has never been antagonistic towards Iran. Iran is just using this as an excuse to be belligerent.

Edit: Don't know why why post came out like this. Apologies.

The current regime started out committing an act of war against the US. It's impossible for it to be in response to anything we did to the regime because it happened from the very start. I'm talking about the hostages.

The initial hostage taking was an act of war by the revolutionaries, but when the new government kept the hostages they also became responsible for the situation. Embassies are considered basically territory of the country whose embassy it is--in diplo-speak they invaded the United States on day 1.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Getting invaded by US-backed Iraq was a clear act of belligerence.

The US-backed attack from Iraq was a response to Iranian belligerence.

Throwing out a US backed dictatorship was clearly an attack on the US.

Even if true it's irrelevant. The issue is the hostages, not the revolution.

 

[Patooka]

That's a very good point. Iran has no reason to habour any resentment towards the United States. The United states has never been antagonistic towards Iran. Iran is just using this as an excuse to be belligerent.

Edit: Don't know why why post came out like this. Apologies.

The current regime started out committing an act of war against the US. It's impossible for it to be in response to anything we did to the regime because it happened from the very start. I'm talking about the hostages.

The initial hostage taking was an act of war by the revolutionaries, but when the new government kept the hostages they also became responsible for the situation. Embassies are considered basically territory of the country whose embassy it is--in diplo-speak they invaded the United States on day 1.

And I'm saying those events didn't occur in a vacuum.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Throwing out a US backed dictatorship was clearly an attack on the US.

Even if true it's irrelevant. The issue is the hostages, not the revolution.

The issue with the hostages was nearly 40 years ago!

 

[laughing dog]

Not everything is about the US. The British held an Iranian tanker that was bound for Syria - this is retaliation against Britain.

 

[SLD]

Not everything is about the US. The British held an Iranian tanker that was bound for Syria - this is retaliation against Britain.

Yup. This really doesn’t have much to do with the US and our troubled relationship with Iran. Britain just seized an Iranian tanker smuggling oil to Syria. This is retaliation for that attack.

In response to some of the other posts, the US does have a vital national interest in keeping the straits of Hormuz open, regardless of our previous issues with Iran. We’ve been doing this for decades now. Along with numerous allies, including Britain, Australia and other European powers. The world has an interest in keeping the straits open. Freedom of navigation is something the US has championed from its beginning and we are doing it all over the world, not just in the straits of Hormuz, but we are challenging China in the South China Sea as well.

But that’s not really the issue. The problem has been Trump and his stupid decision to provoke Iran by withdrawing from the JCPOA and to try to clamp down to force regime change. His administration thinks that if they throw their weight around the regime will collapse. It won’t work. They think that a war with them would be quick and easy. It won’t be. It likely won’t be contained. We'll likely go it alone without allied support. The world economy would likely collapse due to extremely high oil prices. Trump has so far done one thing right and that was call off the earlier attack ( and I wonder if Putin told him to, as I certainly don’t buy his bs excuse.

But if Iran has backing from China and Russia, it could be emboldened to force Trump's hand. If they are provided by Russia and China, they could bleed us dry over there for years. Nothing would make China and Russia happier to see that happen. This could really end badly; it might even bring us into direct conflict with China and Russia if they do try to supply them. We could be looking at a bizarre WWIII scenario in the Asian land mass and yet isolated because of Trump and Bolton's hubris. These people need to be stopped.

SLD

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Throwing out a US backed dictatorship was clearly an attack on the US.

Even if true it's irrelevant. The issue is the hostages, not the revolution.

The issue with the hostages was nearly 40 years ago!

The issue was who initiated and who reacted.

Their first action was an act of war. That can't be a reaction because there was nothing to react to.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Throwing out a US backed dictatorship was clearly an attack on the US.

Even if true it's irrelevant. The issue is the hostages, not the revolution.

Just curious what the exact argument is here. Is it that country A cannot hold citizens of country B?

The issue with the hostages was nearly 40 years ago!

The issue was who initiated and who reacted.

Their first action was an act of war. That can't be a reaction because there was nothing to react to.

The installation of the shah was the initial action and the revolution and hostages was a reaction then?

 

[bilby]

The issue with the hostages was nearly 40 years ago!

The issue was who initiated and who reacted.

Their first action was an act of war. That can't be a reaction because there was nothing to react to.

Nothing?

So, in the beginning, Afghanistan and Pakistan had coastlines on the Arabian Gulf. And the Ayatollahs said 'Let us take American hostages', and the land now called Iran sprang into existence from nothing.

This sounds implausible.

Nobody takes hostages for no reason whatsoever. That you don't even want to contemplate what the inspiration for that act might be is not evidence that it was without cause.

But just think how different things would be if only they had (for no reason) decided to take some Pakistani hostages instead of Americans. As there was no reason for their hostage taking, that scenario is just as likely as what actually happened, right?

What if the Iranian revolutionaries had stormed the nearby Shirudi Sports Complex and held the athletes hostage? It would have completely altered world history.

But sadly, they completely without any reason decided to take American diplomats hostage. For no reason whatsoever.

 

[Derec]

Nothing?

So, in the beginning, Afghanistan and Pakistan had coastlines on the Arabian Gulf. And the Ayatollahs said 'Let us take American hostages', and the land now called Iran sprang into existence from nothing.

What are you babbling about? Iran/Persia existed for a long time. And before the weird beards took over, it was a normal country.

This sounds implausible.

Yet you wrote it for some inexplicable reason.

Nobody takes hostages for no reason whatsoever. That you don't even want to contemplate what the inspiration for that act might be is not evidence that it was without cause.

The cause was that Iran was taken by a cabal of evil theocrats who view USA as the "Great Satan" and Israel as the "Little Satan".

But just think how different things would be if only they had (for no reason) decided to take some Pakistani hostages instead of Americans. As there was no reason for their hostage taking, that scenario is just as likely as what actually happened, right?

There was a reason the theocrats took over the US embassy, but it was not a rational reason.

But sadly, they completely without any reason decided to take American diplomats hostage. For no reason whatsoever.

Are you trying to justify Iran invading the embassy and taking the diplomats hostage?