Iran tanker heads to Greece, U.S. warns against helping vessel

[webfact]

Iran tanker heads to Greece, U.S. warns against helping vessel

 

An Iranian flag flies on Iranian oil tanker Adrian Darya 1, previously named Grace 1, as it sits anchored after the Supreme Court of the British territory lifted its detention order, in the Strait of Gibraltar, Spain, August 18, 2019. REUTERS/Jon Nazca

 

DUBAI (Reuters) - An Iranian tanker at the centre of an angry confrontation between Iran and Washington sailed for Greece on Monday after it was freed from detention off Gibraltar, as Washington called the release unfortunate and warned Greece and Mediterranean ports against helping the vessel.

 

Tehran said any U.S. move to seize the vessel again would have "heavy consequences". While Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif appeared to downplay the possibility of military conflict with Washington in an interview on U.S. television, he also indicated on a visit to Finland that Washington was seeking "more escalation".

 

The Grace 1, renamed the Adrian Darya 1, left anchorage off Gibraltar about 11 p.m. (2100 GMT) on Sunday. Refinitiv ship tracking data showed on Monday that the vessel was heading to Kalamata in Greece and was scheduled to arrive next Sunday at 0000 GMT.

 

The seizure of the tanker by British Royal Marines near Gibraltar in July 4 on suspicion of carrying oil to Syria in violation of European Union sanctions led to a weeks-long confrontation between Tehran and the West. It also heightened tensions on international oil shipping routes through the Gulf.

 

Gibraltar, a British overseas territory, lifted the detention order on Thursday. But the next day, a federal court in Washington issued a warrant for the seizure of the tanker, the oil it carries and nearly $1 million.

 

The Iranian tanker caught in a standoff between Tehran and the West was sailing to Greece on Monday after leaving Gibraltar, shipping data showed, hours after the British territory rejected a U.S. request to detain the vessel further. Mia Womersley reports.

 

Gibraltar said on Sunday it could not comply with that request because it was bound by EU law. Washington wanted to detain the tanker on the grounds that it had links to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which it has designated a terrorist organisation.

 

'UNFORTUNATE'

"It's unfortunate that that happened," U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told Fox News Channel about the ship's release.

 

Pompeo said that if Iran was successful in making a profit from the tanker's oil cargo, IRGC elite forces would have "more money, more wealth, more resources to continue their terror campaign.".

 

A U.S. State Department official said Washington had conveyed its "strong position" to the Greek government, as well as to all ports in the Mediterranean about facilitating the tanker.

 

The official said assisting the ship could be considered providing support to a terrorist organization.

 

Zarif said in Finland: "We are happy this ordeal has ended and I hope this will lead to less escalation."

 

He also said the U.S. warrant had no legal basis and was politically motivated to "make more escalation."

 

But in an interview with "NBC Nightly News," Zarif said Iran would not take military action to end its standoff with its longtime adversary.

 

“We will not. We have never done that, in the past 250 years. We have defended ourselves. And we have taught good lessons to those who invaded us," Zarif said.

 

He also appeared to downplay the possibility of U.S. military action against the Islamic Republic in the interview, saying the U.S. habit of saying: "No option is off the table" in its approach to Iran was a violation of the U.N. Charter.

 

Greek authorities had no immediate comment on the situation.

 

WARNINGS THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS

Asked whether the United States could renew its seizure request after the tanker sailed from Gibraltar, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi said: "Such an action, and even the talk of it ... would endanger shipping safety in open seas."

 

"Iran has issued the necessary warnings through official channels, especially the Swiss embassy, to American officials not to commit such an error because it would have heavy consequences," Mousavi said in remarks on state television.

 

Switzerland represents U.S. interests in Iran, which has no diplomatic relations with the United States.

 

The Adrian Darya 1, which was reflagged to Iran after being delisted by Panama on May 29, was fully laden and carrying about 2 million barrels of oil, Refinitiv data showed. The cargo was valued at tens of millions of dollars.

 

U.S. President Donald Trump pulled out of a 2015 nuclear deal with Iran in May last year, while the European Union is still part of the accord, which allows Tehran to sell its oil.

 

Washington wants to reduce Iran's oil exports to zero and has reimposed U.S. sanctions that place heavy penalties on any breaches even for non-U.S. citizens and companies, including asset freezes and being cut off from the U.S. financial system.

 

While EU regulations still allow for companies and citizens in the bloc to trade with Iran, falling foul of U.S. sanctions has meant most banks are unwilling to process even authorised transactions such as for food and medicine, finance sources say.

 

It is likely to be the first major foreign policy test for Greece's new prime Minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, since he took office in July if the vessel enters Greek territorial waters.

 

Zarif said that because of U.S. sanctions, Iran could not disclose where the oil would go.

 

The Greek coastguard said it had no formal information the vessel was heading to Kalamata and was monitoring the matter.

 

TANKER HELD BY IRAN

Separately, a senior Iranian lawmaker said a crisis in Iran's ties with Britain, which included Tehran's seizure of a British-flagged tanker last month, would not be over until the tanker reached its destination.

 

Iran's Revolutionary Guards on July 19 seized the Stena Impero in the Strait of Hormuz waterway for alleged marine violations, two weeks after the Grace 1 was commandeered.

 

"Until the Iranian oil tanker arrives at its destination the British must help end the crisis," Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh, of parliament's national security and foreign affairs committee, was quoted as saying by semi-official ISNA news agency.

 

"The crisis with Britain is not over. Britain has the primary responsibility for ending the oil tanker crisis," Falahatpisheh said.

 

Mousavi said Tehran was waiting for a court decision on alleged maritime violations by the Stena Impero and he hoped the procedures would be completed as soon as possible.

 

(Reporting by Dubai newsroom, Parisa Hafezi, Lisa Barrington, Anna Ringstrom in Helsinki Jonathan Saul in London, George Georgiopoulos in Athens, Harshith Aranya in Bengaluru, Babak Dehghanpisheh in Geneva and Lesley Wroughton in Washington; Editing by Angus MacSwan, William Maclean and Peter Cooney)

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-08-20

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[Tug]

What a bunch of unessary bs I guess that’s what you get with a unfit potus

[colinneil]

What a crock of s++t, US warns against helping the ship.

Who the hell do these clowns think they are?

So if a country helps the ship what are the Yanks going to do?

Sort out the mess in your own back yard, have you not messed up enough countries in recent years.

[neeray]

19 minutes ago, colinneil said:

So if a country helps the ship what are the Yanks going to do?

Sanctions! and if that doesn't work, more sanctions! That's the way of this school-yard-bully POTUS.

 

[ThaiFelix]

Declaring others as terrorist organisations..........what a joke!!

[tonbridgebrit]

Washington, can you please leave this tanker alone. You've already made yourself look ridiculous. Do yourself a favour, and simply say nothing more about this tanker.

[Morch]

9 hours ago, colinneil said:

What a crock of s++t, US warns against helping the ship.

Who the hell do these clowns think they are?

So if a country helps the ship what are the Yanks going to do?

Sort out the mess in your own back yard, have you not messed up enough countries in recent years.

 

There are US sanctions in place against trading with Iran. Countries or firms that choose to do so might be effected. I kinda doubt that the Greek government would feel best interests will be served by defying the USA.

 

Other than that, there are EU sanctions with regard to Syria. As it is doubtful Greece is the final destination, the same issues relating to the tanker's detainment might come up again.

[Morch]

8 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Washington, can you please leave this tanker alone. You've already made yourself look ridiculous. Do yourself a favour, and simply say nothing more about this tanker.

 

IMO, posting as if talking directly to someone in authority (never mind "Washington") is ridiculous in itself.

And as expected, your post doesn't reference EU sanctions.

[bristolboy]

21 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

There are US sanctions in place against trading with Iran. Countries or firms that choose to do so might be effected. I kinda doubt that the Greek government would feel best interests will be served by defying the USA.

 

Other than that, there are EU sanctions with regard to Syria. As it is doubtful Greece is the final destination, the same issues relating to the tanker's detainment might come up again.

Apparently, Gibraltar isn't afraid of US sanctions.

And why would the issue of detainment arise again if the tanker doesn't head for Syria while it's in EU waters? 

[jany123]

11 hours ago, webfact said:

Tehran said any U.S. move to seize the vessel again would have "heavy consequences".

Scuttle the tub in the face of US aggression, after all, that is what you do to keep your assets from being taken by the enemy, right?

 

now that would make for some interesting headlines.

[Dumbastheycome]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

There are US sanctions in place against trading with Iran. Countries or firms that choose to do so might be effected. I kinda doubt that the Greek government would feel best interests will be served by defying the USA.

 

Other than that, there are EU sanctions with regard to Syria. As it is doubtful Greece is the final destination, the same issues relating to the tanker's detainment might come up again.

So  us  sanctions  are  cause  enough to  make  other  countries   bow  down? Think about  that !

Greece  will  reject a shipment  of oil? Does  Greece  come under  sanctions  from  us ?

Be embarrassed  enough   with  the Tweet   git! Global  nations  have the right to buy energy or  a   <deleted>   Harley  on a free  market!

[timendres]

Syria designated a State Sponsor of Terrorism in December 1979. (Jimmy Carter)

Additional sanctions and restrictions added in May 2004 (George W Bush)

Executive Order 13572 in April 2011, blocking property of Syrian officials (Barack Obama)

May 9, 2019 order to extend for one more year a set of unilateral sanctions against Syria (Donald Trump)

[Somtamnication]

The 'merkins still think they are the world's police. Well, after the 911 fiasco and "policing" the middle east for 19 years, they need to realize that they must protect their shores only, not anyone else's.

[Morch]

11 hours ago, Dumbastheycome said:

So  us  sanctions  are  cause  enough to  make  other  countries   bow  down? Think about  that !

Greece  will  reject a shipment  of oil? Does  Greece  come under  sanctions  from  us ?

Be embarrassed  enough   with  the Tweet   git! Global  nations  have the right to buy energy or  a   <deleted>   Harley  on a free  market!

 

You can argue the sanctions aren't right. Arguing that they are ineffective would be harder.

 

Greece is not about to "receive" a shipment of oil. It would need to be purchased. Purchasing said oil might lead to adverse economic and political consequences which might outweigh the benefit/profit. It's a choice,

 

As far as I'm aware, the oil trade is not run by way of tankers sailing around the globe, stopping at various ports and offering oil to the locals. Deals are signed beforehand. Kinda doubt the oil is intended for Greece.

[Dumbastheycome]

12 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You can argue the sanctions aren't right. Arguing that they are ineffective would be harder.

 

Greece is not about to "receive" a shipment of oil. It would need to be purchased. Purchasing said oil might lead to adverse economic and political consequences which might outweigh the benefit/profit. It's a choice,

 

As far as I'm aware, the oil trade is not run by way of tankers sailing around the globe, stopping at various ports and offering oil to the locals. Deals are signed beforehand. Kinda doubt the oil is intended for Greece.

Receive, purchase. Under the circumstances this tanker apparantley had  no documentation showing Syria was the customer so it is available to a  spot market perhaps? Greece becomes the lucky winner?

An interesting question might be what the us intended to do with the  cargo had it  been successful in acquiring the ship? Sell it back to Iran ? 555

[Morch]

34 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Receive, purchase. Under the circumstances this tanker apparantley had  no documentation showing Syria was the customer so it is available to a  spot market perhaps? Greece becomes the lucky winner?

An interesting question might be what the us intended to do with the  cargo had it  been successful in acquiring the ship? Sell it back to Iran ? 555

 

Yes, receive and purchase are different things. The former probably not falling under any sanctions, while the latter does. The tanker, apparently, didn't have any documentation regarding destination or buyer, which is odd by itself. Considering USA sanctions in place, kinda doubt Greece made arrangements to buy the oil - before or after the tanker was detained. If that was the case, there would have been documentation. The cargo being intended for Syria remains the probable assumption. Whether it can be delivered following the recent events, remains to be seen. Your "query" was addressed on several media reports, including, I think, OPs on this forum.

[Dumbastheycome]

59 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Yes, receive and purchase are different things. The former probably not falling under any sanctions, while the latter does. The tanker, apparently, didn't have any documentation regarding destination or buyer, which is odd by itself. Considering USA sanctions in place, kinda doubt Greece made arrangements to buy the oil - before or after the tanker was detained. If that was the case, there would have been documentation. The cargo being intended for Syria remains the probable assumption. Whether it can be delivered following the recent events, remains to be seen. Your "query" was addressed on several media reports, including, I think, OPs on this forum.

The tanker was  found not to have documentation linking a sale to Syria. Not so odd if it was ditched. But after being allowed to depart who is to know what arrangements were made. Greece was the nominated  destination, buyer or not. For the majority of the world they are entitled to do what they want so long as  not attempting to supply Syria. The crux of this issue is that the us has  failed to impose unvalidated reason to intervene further.

[timendres]

5 hours ago, Somtamnication said:

The 'merkins still think they are the world's police. Well, after the 911 fiasco and "policing" the middle east for 19 years, they need to realize that they must protect their shores only, not anyone else's.

That is a lovely concept, and one that most 'merkins would agree with. Most citizens would love to withdraw from the world stage and focus on domestic issues entirely. Unfortunately, our national interests do not quite allow this luxury. That said, I, like many others, have serious issues with our international objectives and activities. We really do need better leadership in that arena.

 

BTW, love your signature.

[Morch]

33 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

The tanker was  found not to have documentation linking a sale to Syria. Not so odd if it was ditched. But after being allowed to depart who is to know what arrangements were made. Greece was the nominated  destination, buyer or not. For the majority of the world they are entitled to do what they want so long as  not attempting to supply Syria. The crux of this issue is that the us has  failed to impose unvalidated reason to intervene further.

 

The tanker apparently had no relevant documentation whatsoever. If you consider this routine, we'll have to disagree. No idea what you mean by "ditched", or how this fits in the timeline of events.

 

If you don't think the oil was intended for Syria, perhaps come up with a valid explanation as to why the tanker was taking the long way to the Mediterranean sea and where the cargo is intended.

 

Greece is the current declared destination. Whether the tanker actually ends there, remains to be seen. As for "arrangements" - wouldn't know what you imagine these are.

 

And again, you may object to the USA sanctions on Iran. Fair enough. It doesn't follow that they will be ignored, or that the Greek government (or any sensible government) would choose to defy  the USA in order to satisfy political views of posters.

 

I think the situation is more like a hot potato being passed around. Now it might be Greece's turn to play. Seeing as the tanker now flies an Iranian flag, there's even less maneuvering room.

 

 

[Dumbastheycome]

58 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The tanker apparently had no relevant documentation whatsoever. If you consider this routine, we'll have to disagree. No idea what you mean by "ditched", or how this fits in the timeline of events.

 

If you don't think the oil was intended for Syria, perhaps come up with a valid explanation as to why the tanker was taking the long way to the Mediterranean sea and where the cargo is intended.

 

Greece is the current declared destination. Whether the tanker actually ends there, remains to be seen. As for "arrangements" - wouldn't know what you imagine these are.

 

And again, you may object to the USA sanctions on Iran. Fair enough. It doesn't follow that they will be ignored, or that the Greek government (or any sensible government) would choose to defy  the USA in order to satisfy political views of posters.

 

I think the situation is more like a hot potato being passed around. Now it might be Greece's turn to play. Seeing as the tanker now flies an Iranian flag, there's even less maneuvering room.

 

 

Where  have I  ever expressed any opinion as to the original intended destination of this tanker? I do agree it possibly was but that no documentation was found to confirm that ( or as you state no documentation at all). By ditched I mean  any documentation to confirm Syria was the destination was destroyed. Nor  have I even slightly intimated I consider any of that "routine".

The route the tanker took was unusual but hardly secretive in reality but which adds a little to the saga.

As  for "arrangements" I have no  cause to imagine or  seriously contemplate what the alternatives are. I am not an oil broker, a ship  owner.

To oblige  your expectations  of my speculation perhaps Iran has played a  very curious  game  and this  tanker was  bait to test International resolve re' overall sanctions and international law? Perhaps there was  no particular destination therefore  no documentation? If so it has had some success.

The us  sanctions on Iran are belong with the us and they have the right to apply them pertinent to the intent of the us. My objection is the threatening imposition of them on those who are not party to them  and the detriment to global trade. You encapsulate my sentiment about that when you use the  term "defy the us".

 

 

 

 

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Where  have I  ever expressed any opinion as to the original intended destination of this tanker? I do agree it possibly was but that no documentation was found to confirm that ( or as you state no documentation at all). By ditched I mean  any documentation to confirm Syria was the destination was destroyed. Nor  have I even slightly intimated I consider any of that "routine".

The route the tanker took was unusual but hardly secretive in reality but which adds a little to the saga.

As  for "arrangements" I have no  cause to imagine or  seriously contemplate what the alternatives are. I am not an oil broker, a ship  owner.

To oblige  your expectations  of my speculation perhaps Iran has played a  very curious  game  and this  tanker was  bait to test International resolve re' overall sanctions and international law? Perhaps there was  no particular destination therefore  no documentation? If so it has had some success.

The us  sanctions on Iran are belong with the us and they have the right to apply them pertinent to the intent of the us. My objection is the threatening imposition of them on those who are not party to them  and the detriment to global trade. You encapsulate my sentiment about that when you use the  term "defy the us".

 

 

 

 

 

Yawn.

 

Spin it all you like. Not having any documentation regarding destination, going all the way around Africa without such documentation and then heading into the Mediterranean kinda narrows the options. You want to pretend otherwise? Go right ahead.

 

The route wouldn't be "secretive" as it would practically be impossible to do so. More likely, it was a bit of chance taking and maybe some stops weren't quite planned. Possibly political conditions were somewhat different when the tanker started on its journey.

 

If you have no actual knowledge with regard to possible "arrangements", why go on about them or make unfounded assumptions?

 

I don't think the tanker was about testing international resolve regarding sanctions. For starters, it doesn't have a clear destination. Having one would have highlighted the issue. Same goes for flying an Iranian flag to begin with. And, of course, the same could have been accomplished with a less significant vessel, or say, by trying the Suez Canal.

 

[tifino]

 a tanker, that big, would cost the Gleeks more than their GNP

 

I can see some ship borne problem, in port, requiring it all to be offloaded... and then it disappears overland, to their intended target

 

 

but jeez the Icranians must be thick to expect anyone to believe one of their tanker is bringing Oil 'into' the Med Sea, instead of it going outwards.  Importing it... duh!!

[Morch]

18 minutes ago, tifino said:

 a tanker, that big, would cost the Gleeks more than their GNP

 

I can see some ship borne problem, in port, requiring it all to be offloaded... and then it disappears overland, to their intended target

 

 

but jeez the Icranians must be thick to expect anyone to believe one of their tanker is bringing Oil 'into' the Med Sea, instead of it going outwards.  Importing it... duh!!

 

Overland. From Greece. To Syria. Right-o.

[Dumbastheycome]

38 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Yawn.

 

Spin it all you like. Not having any documentation regarding destination, going all the way around Africa without such documentation and then heading into the Mediterranean kinda narrows the options. You want to pretend otherwise? Go right ahead.

 

The route wouldn't be "secretive" as it would practically be impossible to do so. More likely, it was a bit of chance taking and maybe some stops weren't quite planned. Possibly political conditions were somewhat different when the tanker started on its journey.

 

If you have no actual knowledge with regard to possible "arrangements", why go on about them or make unfounded assumptions?

 

I don't think the tanker was about testing international resolve regarding sanctions. For starters, it doesn't have a clear destination. Having one would have highlighted the issue. Same goes for flying an Iranian flag to begin with. And, of course, the same could have been accomplished with a less significant vessel, or say, by trying the Suez Canal.

 

You asked  of my speculative  opinion. No assumptions. No twists. No spin. Opinion.

Perhaps your patriotic rage is interfering with rational  comprehension?

[Morch]

27 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

You asked  of my speculative  opinion. No assumptions. No twists. No spin. Opinion.

Perhaps your patriotic rage is interfering with rational  comprehension?

 

I didn't ask for "speculative" opinion. That's what you offer. I'm usually hoping for a bit more informed or reasoned input - often disappointed. There is not "rage", other than in your imagination. And "patriotism" doesn't apply - as made clear on past occasions.

[Dumbastheycome]

12 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I didn't ask for "speculative" opinion. That's what you offer. I'm usually hoping for a bit more informed or reasoned input - often disappointed. There is not "rage", other than in your imagination. And "patriotism" doesn't apply - as made clear on past occasions.

quote " yawn".

[singking]

 
Yawn.
 
Spin it all you like. Not having any documentation regarding destination, going all the way around Africa without such documentation and then heading into the Mediterranean kinda narrows the options. You want to pretend otherwise? Go right ahead.
 
The route wouldn't be "secretive" as it would practically be impossible to do so. More likely, it was a bit of chance taking and maybe some stops weren't quite planned. Possibly political conditions were somewhat different when the tanker started on its journey.
 
If you have no actual knowledge with regard to possible "arrangements", why go on about them or make unfounded assumptions?
 
I don't think the tanker was about testing international resolve regarding sanctions. For starters, it doesn't have a clear destination. Having one would have highlighted the issue. Same goes for flying an Iranian flag to begin with. And, of course, the same could have been accomplished with a less significant vessel, or say, by trying the Suez Canal.
 

Nothing worse than a self righteous yank.
As simplistic as this may seem. The rest of the world are sick to death of America’s imposition on others. To be bought up on Hollywood is one thing, to believe it is ... well childish. Sort out your own miserable mess and leave other sovereign countries to sort out theirs. MYOB.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Morch]

5 hours ago, Dumbastheycome said:

quote " yawn".

 

About as expected when you can't back up your usual nonsense.

[Morch]

5 hours ago, singking said:

Nothing worse than a self righteous yank.
As simplistic as this may seem. The rest of the world are sick to death of America’s imposition on others. To be bought up on Hollywood is one thing, to believe it is ... well childish. Sort out your own miserable mess and leave other sovereign countries to sort out theirs. MYOB.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

Only I'm not American. And there wasn't anything self-righteous about my post. I'm not arguing the moral value of USA sanctions, even though I don't see them being quite as unacceptable as some. The sanctions being wrong doesn't seem to be much of a factor with regard to their effectiveness and impact. Maybe this contributed to the fury poured on posts dealing with related issues.

 

And yes, pretending to speak for "the rest of the world" is simplistic, and nonsensical.

[jany123]

On 8/21/2019 at 6:13 AM, Somtamnication said:

The 'merkins still think they are the world's police. Well, after the 911 fiasco and "policing" the middle east for 19 years, they need to realize that they must protect their shores only, not anyone else's.

Unless asked for help by an ally.