abc bcd

Iran says tanker oil sold at sea, buyer sets destination

Recommended Posts

https://uk.reuters.com/article/mideast-iran-tanker/iran-says-tanker-oil-sold-at-sea-buyer-sets-destination-idUKL5N26230M

 

Iran’s envoy to London said on Wednesday the oil cargo of tanker Adrian Darya 1 was sold at sea to a private company, denying Tehran had broken assurances it had given over the vessel, but he insisted EU’s Syria sanctions did not apply to Tehran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as long as he ‘insisted’ that the EU sanctions did not apply to Tehran....everything should be okay.🤔

  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Well, as long as he ‘insisted’ that the EU sanctions did not apply to Tehran....everything should be okay.🤔

The ship would not have had this luxury of sailing and transferring the cargo (ship to ship) in the open sea, had it been seized by the US.

But lamentably the UK did not do enough to help the US on this.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is my understanding that situations such as this is why torpedoes were developed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Duplicitous wordplay from Iran's envoy to London.

Loosely paraphrased:

"We didn't break our written assurances to not break EU sanctions against Syria, but EU santions don't apply to us so don't get mad if our written assurances are not applicable here."

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The takeaway from this fiasco is to not believe anything, verbal or written, coming out of Tehran.

They must have studied under Mao...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The damage has been done. The cargo was worth 120 million $ and as it is - it stands cashed.

Plus the VLCC is still moving freely under Iranian flag for the next voyage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, abc bcd said:

The damage has been done. The cargo was worth 120 million $ and as it is - it stands cashed.

Plus the VLCC is still moving freely under Iranian flag for the next voyage. 

The ‘damage’ from allowing that specific load of oil has been done...

I am sure that this incident will be rewarded with further damages.

....on second thought, the EU enforcement of their own sanctions is spineless.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

It is my understanding that situations such as this is why torpedoes were developed.

Hitting an oil tanker with a torpedo in the Mediterranean is not a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mining or attacking oil tankers in the Straits is also a bad idea, but that doesn’t seem to deter Iran from threatening to do so...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

Hitting an oil tanker with a torpedo in the Mediterranean is not a good idea.

 

Correct.

 

With 2 million barrels of oil getting into blue sea would be an immense environmental disaster. 

Also, the scenario would be hardly workable (practically) since the range of torpedo is only 40-50 kilometers. If the US navy's assets came this close to the Iranian ship, they would rather seize the ship instead of punching a hole in it and invite the ire of International environmental activist ~ Greenpeace and others.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, abc bcd said:

 

Correct.

 

With 2 million barrels of oil getting into blue sea would be an immense environmental disaster. 

Also, the scenario would be hardly workable (practically) since the range of torpedo is only 40-50 kilometers. If the US navy's assets came this close to the Iranian ship, they would rather seize the ship instead of punching a hole in it and invite the ire of International environmental activist ~ Greenpeace and others.

 

First, I was under the impression that the oil had been offloaded.

Second, I guarantee you that you have no idea of the ‘real’ range of a torpedo. You only know whatever they have allowed to be published.

It would be difficult to board a VLCC from a submarine in any case.

Why should the US be deterred by Greenpeace and the other tree hugging Fruit Loops, Iran doesn’t seem to be? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

42 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

First, I was under the impression that the oil had been offloaded.

Second, I guarantee you that you have no idea of the ‘real’ range of a torpedo. You only know whatever they have allowed to be published.

It would be difficult to board a VLCC from a submarine in any case.

Why should the US be deterred by Greenpeace and the other tree hugging Fruit Loops, Iran doesn’t seem to be? 

 

Ohio class submarines use Mark 48 torpedo which is improved advanced capability (ADCAP) variant heavyweight torpedo.

This is manufactured by Honeywell whose marketing brochure with advertised range of 40 to 50 kilometer range is well known and stands out. Why would a torpedo's range be a top class secret which is exported to and being in operation in countries like Taiwan, Brazil, Singapore and NATO countries?

If Torpedo's range is classified then every other cruise missile's range is classified and unknown too with the same extension of your reasoning. And if so, how would the MTCR regime verify and take action on such cruise missiles under such (MTCR) restrictions on range and payload?

When the torpedo builder itself is saying (in their market brochure which they display in each n every defense expo) the range is 40 to 50 kilometers for its probable export customers, why on the earth are you against it?

It would be difficult to board a VLCC from a submarine in any case.

It is not boarding phase alone. There are other ways. The submarine can surface close by to the ship and issue radio warning to the captain through maritime radio frequency by telling them to follow their (US) given route and be escorted. I am sure the captain will piss in his pants and follow suit without a second thought or opinion.

 

Why should the US be deterred by Greenpeace and the other tree hugging Fruit Loops, Iran doesn’t seem to be? 

Iran is a rogue nation ~ International pariah. Why do you want a civilized democracy like the US to be the same?

 

 

Edited by abc bcd
improvement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you honestly think that ANY country publishes the actual performance of ANY weapons system, then you are being childish in the extreme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Mining or attacking oil tankers in the Straits is also a bad idea, but that doesn’t seem to deter Iran from threatening to do so...

You are correct, but threatening and doing are two different matters.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On the broader point: I agree.  If the oil tanker could have been stopped from reaching Syria, that would have been good as I seriously hate Assad.  

But without compliant allies, what is America going to do about it? If you sink the tanker after it unloads the oil, it sorta defeats the purpose doesn't it? 

Edited by Zhong Lu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lu,

When I originally made the comment ‘I thought that this was why they developed torpedoes’, I did so jokingly.

The response has been interesting.

I would never suggest that a ship, not at war, with an international crew, be torpedoed for political reasons. And the US never mentioned an intent to do so. No threat has been made by the US although Iran has often mentioned ‘closing the Straits’. How would they accomplish this without military action against vessels? 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

If you honestly think that ANY country publishes the actual performance of ANY weapons system, then you are being childish in the extreme.

 

How does the MTCR verify the range n payload of missiles which they are bound to, in order to enforce sanctions or stop proliferation? 

I think you don't have any clue on military hardware IMPEX. Have you ever attended any defense Expo?

To justify your argument you have started to deride posters with the following gem:

you are being childish in the extreme.

Your dialogue on this (Torpedo) is insignificant and trivial sans any coherence. 

To keep your dignity intact, stop derision.You are sending wrong signals. This could be counterproductive for you. Remember, I never came into your personal territory with such remarks.

 

Finally, I see for the fact that your dialogue is thinning to just one liner.

This is a self explanatory. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

When I originally made the comment ‘I thought that this was why they developed torpedoes’, I did so jokingly.

Haha I was just gonna put ''er guys, pretty sure he was joking''. Glad I looked at whole thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Zhong Lu said:

Hitting an oil tanker with a torpedo in the Mediterranean is not a good idea.

Phew, now I know. I'll withdraw my plans.

Thanks Zhong ;) 

  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, abc bcd said:

 

How does the MTCR verify the range n payload of missiles which they are bound to, in order to enforce sanctions or stop proliferation? 

I think you don't have any clue on military hardware IMPEX. Have you ever attended any defense Expo?

To justify your argument you have started to deride posters with the following gem:

you are being childish in the extreme.

Your dialogue on this (Torpedo) is insignificant and trivial sans any coherence. 

To keep your dignity intact, stop derision.You are sending wrong signals. This could be counterproductive for you. Remember, I never came into your personal territory with such remarks.

 

Finally, I see for the fact that your dialogue is thinning to just one liner.

This is a self explanatory. 

Okay, how about this, as you seem so thin skinned.

Do you honestly believe that any country will post the actual performance specification on any location where any foreign military, let alone a civilian like you or I, can access it?

The actual perfomance specifications of the Lockheed SR71 Blackbird are still classified and it first flew in 1964!

If you believe that the actual payload, range, velocity, targetting system data is available to you or I, then yes you are being a bit naive. 

If you cannot take constructive criticism, perhaps you should avoid any meaningful discussions.

Now, you have implied a threat by stating, "This could be counterproductive for you." Do you care to explain that?

How's that for a one liner?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Okay, how about this, as you seem so thin skinned.

Do you honestly believe that any country will post the actual performance specification on any location where any foreign military, let alone a civilian like you or I, can access it?

The actual perfomance specifications of the Lockheed SR71 Blackbird are still classified and it first flew in 1964!

If you believe that the actual payload, range, velocity, targetting system data is available to you or I, then yes you are being a bit naive. 

If you cannot take constructive criticism, perhaps you should avoid any meaningful discussions.

Now, you have implied a threat by stating, "This could be counterproductive for you." Do you care to explain that?

How's that for a one liner?

SR71 is classified and not for exports.

This is not pound for pound arguments when you pit a classified SR71 against a widely used torpedo exported to various countries which can be fired from most underwater platforms. F-22 is also classified and not for exports. These common weapons are exported to many countries and they are not classified. And for them to sell this, they have to hand out its specifications such as its warhead, its range, explosives used, warhead's weight, speed and other parameters which are known to buyers who later would want them to demonstrate if the need be.

 

Example: When the US wanted to sell Javlin ATGM to India, their team came to India and demonstrated its capability to clinch the deal. And here the range is crucial. How would they speak or demonstrate otherwise? Ever heard of standoff range? 

 

At least furnish adequate analogy with apple to apple comparison strength. 

I see again that you called me thin skin 

But this is not the only thing I saw. I saw your following damage control too to keep your egos intact:

 

First, I was under the impression that the oil had been offloaded.

Then..

I did so jokingly.

Changing tracks every 2 minutes.

And the dance goes on..

Someone fell, got up, and said I was doing circus (to save his embarrassment)

Hmm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seriously doubt that the US exports torpedoes either....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

9 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

I seriously doubt that the US exports torpedoes either....

Brazil, Singapore, Taiwan, Australia & Canada have them.

How did they acquire them without US exporting them?

 

Edited by abc bcd
improvement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Latest, greatest version or version for export? You don’t know and neither do I - that is sort of the point.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.