Iranian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Mr T said:

First, release the tanker. The Iranians decided to claim it was not obeying "international rules" and still haven't given a detailed explanation as to what rules were broken. They've had enough time to come up with a bullcrap justification. It was an apparently empty tanker in Omanese waters heading for a Saudi port. If you're going to lie in a situation like that, do better than "it was being very naughty".

Second, provide evidence that their tanker wasn't in breach of the European sanctions the UK was acting under. If the evidence isn't accepted, offer that the tanker can be escorted closely/under supervision until the oil is off-loaded.

If the tanker is headed to Syria and would be breaking European sanctions, try a diplomatic argument that Iran isn't bound by them. Try the legal route before breaking the law in such a flagrant way.



We don't have enough there currently, but in theory it probably does in a place like the Gulf if it organised convoys. However, the RN ships are mostly on other duties and would take time to get there.

Click to expand...

You're hilarious! Iran should de-escalate by releasing the British ship but the British shouldn't do that with Iran? Iran should go to your courts and waste their time over something you clearly had no right to do? Very very funny. What arrogance from a country far past its prime! The UK has no authority over Iran or any other country in any fashion under any circumstance. Your suggestion is as funny as saying that you have seized your neighbor's car because he used it to shop at a supermarket that you have sanctioned and you cried foul when he seized your car back; you insist that he should have went to your office to argue a legal case against you and your 3 friends as "judges" for why your sanctions don't apply to him and why he should have his car back in a few months! By your own logic, it is now Britain's turn to slowly wait for the charges and start a legal battle in Iran with Iranian judges for why the Stena Imperio did not violate any laws and should be released. Don't be in a hurry; I have a feeling the case could drag on for a couple months/years. Sound fair to you? Two wrongs don't make a right? Return that tanker then; it is the only thing for the British to do! Until then, Iran has every right to seize everything on the high seas with a British flag or owner to give the UK a taste of its own medicine and show it not to start things again without thinking about the consequences. If Iran was more well-connected like the US (in which case the UK would never even dare think about seizing a tanker from them), every Iranian ally should seize British ships too to show the UK what a barbaric business model its advocating for.

Anlsvrthng said:

I'm sure they have sanctions. That takes only an act of parliament . Are you expert in Iranian law?

Click to expand...

Are you?

Iran has had every chance to justify its actions with specifics. It has failed to do so, because it's not based on any legal principles. It's like a police officer who pulls someone over, smashes the back of their car with a truncheon and says "you've got a tailight out".

Equation said:

You're hilarious! Iran should de-escalate by releasing the British ship but the British shouldn't do that with Iran?

Click to expand...

Fine, if Iran doesn't want to de-escalate, it doesn't have to. But it can't cry if things get hotter. Why do democratic states always have to climb-down first in the face of hostile action from a country like Iran? The answer is, they don't. Countries like Iran can de-escalate as well.

The UK was acting in accordance with EU sanctions on oil exports to Syria. If Tehran doesn't like them, it can protest to Brussel and demand it have an exemption. As for the seizure of the GB-flagged ship, Iran hasn't given any specifics on what regulations the British-flagged vessel had broken.

Iran should go to your courts and waste their time over something you clearly had no right to do?

Click to expand...

Yes, because our legal system is independent and they have a reasonable chance of justice if they honestly think they're in the right.

it is now Britain's turn to slowly wait for the charges and start a legal battle in Iran with Iranian judges

Click to expand...

Ah yes, the Iranian court system. The same court system the creators of Star Trek based the Cardassian justice system on - the verdict being decided before the court case.

I have a feeling the case could drag on for a couple months/years. Sound fair to you?

Click to expand...

Can't say as I care all that much.

Until then, Iran has every right to seize everything on the high seas with a British flag or owner to give the UK a taste of its own medicine and show it not to start things again without thinking about the consequences.

Click to expand...

If Iran did that, it would be an act of war, and we'd have to invoke Article 5 of the NATO charter. Not that Iran actually has any power-projection capabilities. Its navy is only brave when picking on weak targets like unarmed merchantmen.

Mr T said:

Are you?

Iran has had every chance to justify its actions with specifics. It has failed to do so, because it's not based on any legal principles. It's like a police officer who pulls someone over, smashes the back of their car with a truncheon and says "you've got a tailight out".

Click to expand...

Why should a country be denied access to nuclear weapons for self defense? Iran has 100 million citizens. What legitimate grounds does the West (Or any other country) have to deny 100 million people weapons to defend themselves? They saw what happened to every other middle east country for beign weak.

Sanctions should be removed and the rights of the Iranian people should be respected. Unless you believe there should be a different set of standards for everyone and that Iranians must demonstrate that they are good people first.

(Most Iranians I've met in my life are good people).

localizer said:

Why should a country be denied access to nuclear weapons for self defense?

Click to expand...

This just goes to show how badly informed the supporters of Iran in these particular events are.

The EU sanctions that led to the seizure of the Iranian ship had nothing to do with the Iranian WMD programme. They're sanctions concerning oil shipments to Syria.

Mr T said:

Are you?

Iran has had every chance to justify its actions with specifics. It has failed to do so, because it's not based on any legal principles. It's like a police officer who pulls someone over, smashes the back of their car with a truncheon and says "you've got a tailight out".



Fine, if Iran doesn't want to de-escalate, it doesn't have to. But it can't cry if things get hotter. Why do democratic states always have to climb-down first in the face of hostile action from a country like Iran? The answer is, they don't. Countries like Iran can de-escalate as well.

The UK was acting in accordance with EU sanctions on oil exports to Syria. If Tehran doesn't like them, it can protest to Brussel and demand it have an exemption. As for the seizure of the GB-flagged ship, Iran hasn't given any specifics on what regulations the British-flagged vessel had broken.



Yes, because our legal system is independent and they have a reasonable chance of justice if they honestly think they're in the right.



Ah yes, the Iranian court system. The same court system the creators of Star Trek based the Cardassian justice system on - the verdict being decided before the court case.



Can't say as I care all that much.



If Iran did that, it would be an act of war, and we'd have to invoke Article 5 of the NATO charter. Not that Iran actually has any power-projection capabilities. Its navy is only brave when picking on weak targets like unarmed merchantmen.

Click to expand...

Chillax, it hasn't even been 1 weekend yet. They'll have charges, don't worry. And if Iran is like the officer who broke your tail-lights, then Britain's like the crook who pulled you over because he thinks you're going to your friend's house, and he personally hates your friend, so he made up a fake rule that nobody can visit him and he's gonna impound your car based on that.

Why must Britain de-escalate? Because it started it!! You can't be so bad at logic as to not see that, can you? You pirated someone else's ship and ask why they can't be the one to de-escalate?? What kind of humor is this?

Nobody trusts the independence of "your" legal system and nobody should be bothered by it, or you. You're wasting other people's time and they have no need to stand for it. (I don't speak Star Trek; let's keep this in the real world away from scifi films or cartoons, ok?) Last I checked, Iran wasn't the one crying; Jeremy Hunt was squealing that another country would just do to Britain what Britain had done to it. The irony was incredible; you could take Hunt's exact paragraph, replace "Iran" and "UK" with each other wherever they appear, and post a perfect response to him!

Act of War? Heh heh, by that logic, the first one should be an act of war too! I've never heard of an action where the first one's ok but the subsequent ones are acts of war. The UK will change its tune when Iran becomes a nuclear power, a right they have every bit as much as you do, and you will have no one to blame other than yourself. The more you threaten, the more reason and justification they have to work on nuclear weapons.

Mr T said:

Why do democratic states always have to climb-down first in the face of hostile action from a country like Iran?

Click to expand...

Only democratic country in Europe is Switzerland.

Mr T said:

If Iran did that, it would be an act of war, and we'd have to invoke Article 5 of the NATO charter. Not that Iran actually has any power-projection capabilities. Its navy is only brave when picking on weak targets like unarmed merchantmen.

Click to expand...

Interesting change, so you confess that targeting a merchantmen and seizure his shipment is an act of war ?


So, the UK government made an act of war without the authorisation of parliament ( I don't talk about the citizens, I still waiting for the BREXIT that I voted for ,and to have a word in other important questions )

Mr T said:

This just goes to show how badly informed the supporters of Iran in these particular events are.

The EU sanctions that led to the seizure of the Iranian ship had nothing to do with the Iranian WMD programme. They're sanctions concerning oil shipments to Syria.

Click to expand...

And just who gave the EU the right to impose their own sanctions on 3rd party countries outside the EU?

Would the EU accept and respect sanctions from say the SCO which would limit which sovereign countries they can trade with?

The British started this mess. The Iranians are just responding in kind.

Mr T said:

This just goes to show how badly informed the supporters of Iran in these particular events are.

The EU sanctions that led to the seizure of the Iranian ship had nothing to do with the Iranian WMD programme. They're sanctions concerning oil shipments to Syria.

Click to expand...

Maybe because it is irrelevant?

I suggest to read the past history.


What unfolding in the front of our eyes similar to the events of the 1st WW.

The governments of Europe tried to hide the domestic problems with a war, and the whole idea ended badly - for the people, the responsible persons was safe and happy, and protected from all consequences.

Ring a bell about the US/UK government ?

plawolf said:

And just who gave the EU the right to impose their own sanctions on 3rd party countries outside the EU

Click to expand...

Feel free to email the European Commission at . I'm sure they could explain.

Would the EU accept and respect sanctions from say the SCO which would limit which sovereign countries they can trade with?

Click to expand...

The EU sanctions don't ban Iran from trading with anyone. They restrict oil shipments to a specific refinery in Syria.

Anlsvrthng said:

Only democratic country in Europe is Switzerland.

Click to expand...

Why, because some guy in a bar told you Switzerland is neutral? Switzerland is a fairly democratic country, but it's not the most democratic country in Europe by any organisation's assessments, nor the only democratic country.

Interesting change, so you confess that targeting a merchantmen and seizure his shipment is an act of war ?

Click to expand...

One ship, no. Targetting every ship from/going to a country or flagged by a country, as you suggested, for no reason other than you're throwing a tantrum would be an act of war.

Mr T said:

Feel free to email the European Commission at

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. I'm sure they could explain.



The EU sanctions don't ban Iran from trading with anyone. They restrict oil shipments to a specific refinery in Syria.

One ship, no. Targetting every ship from/going to a country or flagged by a country, as you suggested, for no reason other than you're throwing a tantrum would be an act of war.

Click to expand...

People like me and many others who question EU sanctions legitimacy would NOT care nor bother to ask EU for explaination because we deny EU has any jurisdiction and legal ground to saction for whatever reasons.

It does not matter who exactly EU sanction is targeting, Syria or not. We only recognize UN sanction. EU is NOT sovereign, so it has NO legal meaning in terms international legal standing execpt its own member states.

Same logic of yours, (EU member) based on a sanction that has no legal barring outside EU targetting any ship (Iran in this case) is an act of war.