Iran helps Venezuela in its time of need

[Philosopher]

Can they legally blockade our ships? Are the sanctions against Venezuela UN sanctions or unilateral by the U.S.?

Either way, the shipment of fuel should have been touted as humanitarian aid from the beginning and not just commerce or whatever this is....we need to learn to use the same lingo and double meaning as our enemies. Calling it humanitarian aid and then getting it blocked will show their true colors to the world....we must chip away at this false image they've built up since WWI.

They are US sanctions. They have no legal ground to stop another sovereign nation's vessel going to Venezuela. The world is already aware of America's true identity however most nations either cannot or do not act against them. In terms of overt action against the US, it is only Iran that is so aggressive. Iran could have resorted to using various grounds such as humanitarian aid etc but it decided to proudly fly its flag on these ships and send them without such cover. The US has committed so much crime without likes of UN even lifting their tongue that stopping a humanitarian shipment would not be much compared to what they have already done historically.

 

[TheImmortal]

Blame Iran for its slow Navy ship building. If Iran had proper destroyers just 2 of them alongside 1-2 Besat submarines. That would be enough to end this little pathetic game.

But with Iranian incompetence right now at an all time high, it’s possible the Iranian submarine would Just end up sinking its own ship.

 

[QWECXZ]

Blame Iran for its slow Navy ship building. If Iran had proper destroyers just 2 of them alongside 1-2 Besat submarines. That would be enough to end this little pathetic game.

But with Iranian incompetence right now at an all time high, it’s possible the Iranian submarine would Just end up sinking its own ship.

You want to engage the USN in the Atlantic Ocean with 2 destroyers and 2 submarines? Seriously?

 

[Bokhari]

Blame Iran for its slow Navy ship building. If Iran had proper destroyers just 2 of them alongside 1-2 Besat submarines. That would be enough to end this little pathetic game.

But with Iranian incompetence right now at an all time high, it’s possible the Iranian submarine would Just end up sinking its own ship.

You are a pathetic moron and foolish guy

 

[sahureka2]

Question:
It could be an alternative to do like the Russians with commercial ships used to supply Syria (Syria express) and which are "acquired" by the Ministry of Defense and sail under the flag of the Russian Navy fleet, therefore not subject to control such as instead it could occur for units that sail under the commercial flag; could Iran "militarize" the oil tankers that will join the fleet by raising the military flag of IRIAN?

 

[zartosht]

Question:
It could be an alternative to do like the Russians with commercial ships used to supply Syria (Syria express) and which are "acquired" by the Ministry of Defense and sail under the flag of the Russian Navy fleet, therefore not subject to control such as instead it could occur for units that sail under the commercial flag; could Iran "militarize" the oil tankers that will join the fleet by raising the military flag of IRIAN?

I think Russia does that because of the bosphurus legal status with turkey. innocent passage and military vessels are allowed. though turkey could in theory declare a civilian ship supplying the Syrian military is not safe passage and harrass it.

it really shouldnt come to that in this incident. as the flag doesn't really matter. as international law is clear on this. countries have a right to use international waterways for travel. The US is not the goddamn owner of the earth. they are just an open bully who do whatever they think they can get away with

it would be an open act of piracy. Iran already set a precedent with the british on how it will respond to such acts.. so its now a game of chicken...lets see what happens.

 

[TheImmortal]

You want to engage the USN in the Atlantic Ocean with 2 destroyers and 2 submarines? Seriously?

Is that what I said? No I didn’t. Maybe use your head.

They would be in an ESCORT role. It is VERY easy for US (or any country) to board a defenseless tanker. It is another matter entirely to board a tanker that is being escorted by a military flotilla.

The US wouldn’t dare to do it because the risk of escalation is HIGH and the US would be found legally liable if a flare up were to occur as they specifically attacked (attempt to board) a military escort mission.

 

[QWECXZ]

Is that what I said? No I didn’t. Maybe use your head.

They would be in an ESCORT role. It is VERY easy for US (or any country) to board a defenseless tanker. It is another matter entirely to board a tanker that is being escorted by a military flotilla.

The US wouldn’t dare to do it because the risk of escalation is HIGH and the US would be found legally liable if a flare up were to occur as they specifically attacked (attempt to board) a military escort mission.

So you're suggesting that we send 2 destroyers and 2 submarines 4,000 miles away from our borders just to "ESCORT" them and not engage in defending them if attacked? LOL

You really think that if the US decides to escalate things, it will worry about 2 submarines and 2 destroyers near its backyard? LMAO

 

[TheImmortal]

So you're suggesting that we send 2 destroyers and 2 submarines 4,000 miles away from our borders just to "ESCORT" them and not engage in defending them if attacked? LOL

You really think that if the US decides to escalate things, it will worry about 2 submarines and 2 destroyers near its backyard? LMAO

What difference does the distance make? It’s training and Iran has been doing piracy missions in Africa for over decade. So what difference does it make if it is doing piracy near South America.

And if threatened of course the flotilla would defend itself and US would suffer damage as well because they could not destroy all the ships and submarines before they launch their own counter attack.

It’s a mute point because US won’t escalate things, they like to pick on easy targets. A tanker is defenseless target. Even the EU boarded an Iranian tanker. Doesn’t require balls to do.

But I doubt US would try anything with a military escort the risk v reward is simply terrible for the US. After all they don’t really care that Venezuela gets some gasoline that won’t change the facts on the ground in that country. What they are trying to do is intimidate Iran that they shouldn’t be interfering in “America’s backyard”. Iran does the same thing when US sends ships to guard tankers in “Iran’s backyard” in the PG.

 

[Aramagedon]

Blame Iran for its slow Navy ship building. If Iran had proper destroyers just 2 of them alongside 1-2 Besat submarines. That would be enough to end this little pathetic game.

But with Iranian incompetence right now at an all time high, it’s possible the Iranian submarine would Just end up sinking its own ship.

Silly Yankee clown.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/06/politics/us-military-deadly-accidents/index.html

More US troops died during training in United States than in combat operations

"Since 2006 ... a total of 16,652 active-duty personnel and mobilized reservists have died while serving in the US armed forces. Seventy-three percent of these casualties occurred under circumstances unrelated to war," the report states.

...

 

[Malik Alpha]

Lol. Iran's only friend is 12000km away from Iran. Maybe that's the reason they are friends.

 

[TheImmortal]

Hmm. What difference does distance make? 1- Cost of escorting, 2- Cost of maintenance, 3- The ability to support them or save them if the US fired at them, 4- When it's closer to the US, the US has the upper hand in terms of logistics and response time

Yeah, they will suffer damage, but they will sink our destroyers and submarines and there will be no one to help or save our soldiers there.

If the US wants to seize them and we engage them, we will lose our forces. If we don't engage them and they seize the tanker, we will be humiliated. If we have to engage the US, I'd rather engage them close to our borders. If the US seizes those defenseless tankers, we will have the right to respond to their piracy accordingly as we did with the Brits.

Your analysis is not rooted in reality. You have this Hollywood movie notion that the US is going to just start firing on a warship in international waters over a tanker carrying gasoline. I mean that couldn’t be further from the truth. US Navy ships get harassed constantly by Iranian speedboats and don’t respond with lethality, why? Because it’s international waters and while Iran’s conduct is unprofessional as long as it’s not lethal threat then there isn’t justification for use of force. Same would apply in this scenario, US has no basis to board the tanker much less fire on a Iranian warship that is in accordance with UN charter in protecting freedom of navigation of seas from rogue elements.

If Iran did have an Atlantic capable Force, it would send an escort just to flex its muscle on the world stage. Both sides know full well how to play this game. It’s peacocks flaring their feathers. That’s all.

 

[QWECXZ]

Your analysis is not rooted in reality. You have this Hollywood movie notion that the US is going to just start firing on a warship in international waters over a tanker carrying gasoline. I mean that couldn’t be further from the truth. US Navy ships get harassed constantly by Iranian speedboats and don’t respond with lethality, why? Because it’s international waters and while Iran’s conduct is unprofessional as long as it’s not lethal threat then there isn’t justification for use of force. Same would apply in this scenario, US has no basis to board the tanker much less fire on a Iranian warship that is in accordance with UN charter in protecting freedom of navigation of seas from rogue elements.

If Iran did have an Atlantic capable Force, it would send an escort just to flex its muscle on the world stage. Both sides know full well how to play this game. It’s peacocks flaring their feathers. That’s all.

Or maybe because they are near our borders and we have considerable fire power close to our borders? Our fire power far from our borders will be negligible. If the US wants to challenge the UN freedom of navigation in international waters by seizing a tanker, do you think coming up for an excuse to attack those naval assets will be difficult? You know how the US distorts reality and rotates it 180 degrees. Don't you?

So, let's say that the US attack those defenseless tankers. What prevents us from giving them a response near our borders? Are there no US ships near us or what?

 

[sahureka2]

I think Russia does that because of the bosphurus legal status with turkey. innocent passage and military vessels are allowed. though turkey could in theory declare a civilian ship supplying the Syrian military is not safe passage and harrass it.

it really shouldnt come to that in this incident. as the flag doesn't really matter. as international law is clear on this. countries have a right to use international waterways for travel. The US is not the goddamn owner of the earth. they are just an open bully who do whatever they think they can get away with

it would be an open act of piracy. Iran already set a precedent with the british on how it will respond to such acts.. so its now a game of chicken...lets see what happens.

But anyway if you want to stop, control or seize a ship belonging to the commercial navy it could be indicated as a police act to be able to check if the unit is sailing safely etc. , instead these controls cannot do them on a ship belonging to the navy and if they do it is considered an act of war.

 

[zartosht]

But anyway if you want to stop, control or seize a ship belonging to the commercial navy it could be indicated as a police act to be able to check if the unit is sailing safely etc. , instead these controls cannot do them on a ship belonging to the navy and if they do it is considered an act of war.

its a might makes right situation. turkey would not dare touch a Russian navy ship regardlss of whether its armed in the bosphurus, unless it was already at war with Russia. so it makes sense for Russia to do that.

Iran putting a navy flag on it without any escorting firepower might even make it a more enticing target for the US to capture. and return Irans debt on parading captured soldiers and then showing them pity and "hospitality" by feeding them.etc.etc..

the escort option is actually far more effective then some people give it credit for though. the point is not to battle the US navy in the atlantic. its to massively increase the risks associated with the act.

taking a commercial ship is easy. Iran and the UK just did it recently. its considered a hostile international incident

you cannot do that to a warship. you have to open fire on it or force it to surrender. it is magnitutes of order higher and an act of open war essentially.

there are risks and benefit though. since trump is too dumb to realize this and his Zionist advisers might trick him into doing exactly this to provoke a war. so its still an open debate.