UK wasn't prepared - and initially failed?

[jimnyc]

I didn't see this earlier. (now see it came out today, hence the "new" part)

I purposely created a new thread because I have a feeling this thread is going to turn into being more about UK policy than the actual situation in the Strait of Hormuz.

--

I don't think they were prepared, because they failed, that's easy. They had a frigate "in the area", but they didn't get there in time. So the ship's protection was a radioed message from that frigate. If they were fully prepared they would not have failed. They could have kept that frigate close by or they could have had a multitude of ships - a fleet. Alternatively they could potentially have an ally that they can radio and have them come in with their fleet of ships and/or air support. Or you can accept failure and use the radio alone to warn the enemy.

Why even point out he had a stern voice?

This article also implies that the UK has a weak military or a weak Navy and I do not believe that to be the case. I think they didn't send more of them, only issue I can think of.

Wouldn't doing a 360 put you back in the same dame direction?

---

New audio shows UK could not prevent Iran takeover of tanker

LONDON (AP) — The release Sunday of an audio recording has shed new light on the seizure of a British-flagged tanker at the hands of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as tensions flare in the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

The audio released by maritime security risk firm Dryad Global shows that a British frigate was too far away from the targeted tanker to keep it from being diverted into an Iranian port despite U.K. efforts to keep it from being boarded.

On the recording, a stern-voiced British naval officer insists that the U.K.-flagged oil tanker Stena Impero must be allowed to sail through the Strait of Hormuz even as Iranian paramilitary forces demand — successfully — that the vessel change course.

The audio shows how Britain’s once mighty Royal Navy was unable to prevent the ship’s seizure, which has been condemned by Britain and its European allies as they continue to call for a reduction of tensions in the vital waterway.

The free flow of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz is of critical importance to the world’s energy supplies because one-fifth of all global crude exports pass through the narrow waterway between Iran and Oman.

In the recording, an Iranian officer can be heard telling the Stena Impero to change course, saying: “You obey, you will be safe.”

“Alter your course to 360 degrees immediately, over,” the Iranian officer says, adding that the ship is wanted for security reasons.

A British naval officer from the HMS Montrose frigate that was patrolling the area around the Strait of Hormuz is heard telling the Stena Impero, which had a crew of 23 on board, that its passage must be allowed.

“Sir, I reiterate that as you are conducting transit passage in a recognized international strait, under international law your passage must not be impaired, intruded, obstructed or hampered,” the unidentified British officer says.

The British officer then tells an Iranian patrol boat: “Please confirm that you are not intending to violate international law by unlawfully attempting to board the MV Stena.”

His words did nothing to deter the Iranians.

British officials say the HMS Montrose was roughly 60 minutes from the scene when the Iranians took control of the tanker, too far away to intervene effectively.

Iranian officials say the seizure of the British oil tanker was a justified response to Britain’s role in impounding an Iranian supertanker two weeks earlier off the coast of Gibraltar, a British overseas territory located on the southern tip of Spain.

Friday’s seizure comes amid heightened tensions between the U.S. and Iran stemming from President Donald Trump’s decision last year to pull the U.S. from Iran’s nuclear accord with world powers and reinstate sweeping sanctions. The U.S. has also expanded its military presence in the region, while Iran has begun openly exceeding the uranium enrichment levels set in the nuclear accord to try to pressure Europe into alleviating the pain caused by the sanctions.

European nations, which are trying to save the nuclear deal and keep Iran from isolation, have tried to come up with ways to keep trading with Iran but have run smack into Trump’s sanctions.

Rest - https://apnews.com/3079b05145e0442b912f270e0a9380b8

[Gunny]

I didn't see this earlier. (now see it came out today, hence the "new" part)

I purposely created a new thread because I have a feeling this thread is going to turn into being more about UK policy than the actual situation in the Strait of Hormuz.

--

I don't think they were prepared, because they failed, that's easy. They had a frigate "in the area", but they didn't get there in time. So the ship's protection was a radioed message from that frigate. If they were fully prepared they would not have failed. They could have kept that frigate close by or they could have had a multitude of ships - a fleet. Alternatively they could potentially have an ally that they can radio and have them come in with their fleet of ships and/or air support. Or you can accept failure and use the radio alone to warn the enemy.

Why even point out he had a stern voice?

This article also implies that the UK has a weak military or a weak Navy and I do not believe that to be the case. I think they didn't send more of them, only issue I can think of.

Wouldn't doing a 360 put you back in the same dame direction?

---

New audio shows UK could not prevent Iran takeover of tanker

LONDON (AP) — The release Sunday of an audio recording has shed new light on the seizure of a British-flagged tanker at the hands of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as tensions flare in the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

The audio released by maritime security risk firm Dryad Global shows that a British frigate was too far away from the targeted tanker to keep it from being diverted into an Iranian port despite U.K. efforts to keep it from being boarded.

On the recording, a stern-voiced British naval officer insists that the U.K.-flagged oil tanker Stena Impero must be allowed to sail through the Strait of Hormuz even as Iranian paramilitary forces demand — successfully — that the vessel change course.

The audio shows how Britain’s once mighty Royal Navy was unable to prevent the ship’s seizure, which has been condemned by Britain and its European allies as they continue to call for a reduction of tensions in the vital waterway.

The free flow of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz is of critical importance to the world’s energy supplies because one-fifth of all global crude exports pass through the narrow waterway between Iran and Oman.

In the recording, an Iranian officer can be heard telling the Stena Impero to change course, saying: “You obey, you will be safe.”

“Alter your course to 360 degrees immediately, over,” the Iranian officer says, adding that the ship is wanted for security reasons.

A British naval officer from the HMS Montrose frigate that was patrolling the area around the Strait of Hormuz is heard telling the Stena Impero, which had a crew of 23 on board, that its passage must be allowed.

“Sir, I reiterate that as you are conducting transit passage in a recognized international strait, under international law your passage must not be impaired, intruded, obstructed or hampered,” the unidentified British officer says.

The British officer then tells an Iranian patrol boat: “Please confirm that you are not intending to violate international law by unlawfully attempting to board the MV Stena.”

His words did nothing to deter the Iranians.

British officials say the HMS Montrose was roughly 60 minutes from the scene when the Iranians took control of the tanker, too far away to intervene effectively.

Iranian officials say the seizure of the British oil tanker was a justified response to Britain’s role in impounding an Iranian supertanker two weeks earlier off the coast of Gibraltar, a British overseas territory located on the southern tip of Spain.

Friday’s seizure comes amid heightened tensions between the U.S. and Iran stemming from President Donald Trump’s decision last year to pull the U.S. from Iran’s nuclear accord with world powers and reinstate sweeping sanctions. The U.S. has also expanded its military presence in the region, while Iran has begun openly exceeding the uranium enrichment levels set in the nuclear accord to try to pressure Europe into alleviating the pain caused by the sanctions.

European nations, which are trying to save the nuclear deal and keep Iran from isolation, have tried to come up with ways to keep trading with Iran but have run smack into Trump’s sanctions.

Rest - https://apnews.com/3079b05145e0442b912f270e0a9380b8

Whichever know it all wrote that "failed" opinion needs to get HIS ass on a frigate in the Gulf THEN talk shit and pass judgement. It takes a day with both boilers hittin' it to get from one end of the Gulf to the other. People talk about the Gulf like it's this tiny puddle of mostly land-locked water. One way in and out is true. Little doesn't even come close.

While these EU countries want to leave out the US in dealing with Iran, that's akin to ignoring the elephant in the room. The only way to "be prepared" in this context is to escort each ship individually. I don't see that happening.

[Drummond]

This all comes down to mindsets. The psychology involved. Particularly - the perception held in my part of the world that ending the Iran nuke deal was an extremely bad move, and that Trump needs to do a 180 degree turn and re-institute it, pronto.

The EU (and to a degree, the UK) holds to the position that the deal needs to be saved. Whether from purely pragmatic motivations or out of an actual 'sympathy' for Iran, what all the powers in my region want is for things to be smoothed over, defused.

[We've seen sympathy-pieces on BBC News, detailing how the 'poor Iranians' are suffering, thanks to 'aggressive' sanctions they are a 'victim' of ....]

On the one hand, they can't view the seizure of the British tanker as something to take a tolerant view over. On the other, they're still scrambling around for diplomatic answers, because they hope that just to be seen doing that may get Tehran to see us more favourably.

In the UK's case, though .. I'm sure Iran views us as a more natural ally of the US, and weaker, therefore, ripe for picking on.

On the UK side - and, critically - we're hamstrung by our 'PC' climate, which has us forever finding ways to defer to other cultures and be 'enlightened' enough to be 'hyper-receptive' to what they'll say.

Our own psychology is, thanks to long-term social conditioning (from the Left !), disgustingly weak.

So here we are, in a political soup, driven to weakness, some of it entirely home-grown.

If, by some miracle, all of this IS resolved through diplomacy, will we be alert to future belligerence from Iran ? We'll be aware of the possibility of it, BUT, there'll be a lot of back-slapping congratulations because ours will be domestically seen as the 'far better, more civilised and decent' answer to a crisis. Precious few people are going to see our approach as weak, therefore, wrong-headed: indeed, we'll probably wonder why Trump can't 'be more civilised' and 'tolerant' of Iran in future.

This is what chiefly infuriates me ! We absolutely WILL NOT LEARN, UNLESS FORCED TO.

[Kathianne]

This all comes down to mindsets. The psychology involved. Particularly - the perception held in my part of the world that ending the Iran nuke deal was an extremely bad move, and that Trump needs to do a 180 degree turn and re-institute it, pronto.

The EU (and to a degree, the UK) holds to the position that the deal needs to be saved. Whether from purely pragmatic motivations or out of an actual 'sympathy' for Iran, what all the powers in my region want is for things to be smoothed over, defused.

[We've seen sympathy-pieces on BBC News, detailing how the 'poor Iranians' are suffering, thanks to 'aggressive' sanctions they are a 'victim' of ....]

On the one hand, they can't view the seizure of the British tanker as something to take a tolerant view over. On the other, they're still scrambling around for diplomatic answers, because they hope that just to be seen doing that may get Tehran to see us more favourably.

In the UK's case, though .. I'm sure Iran views us as a more natural ally of the US, and weaker, therefore, ripe for picking on.

On the UK side - and, critically - we're hamstrung by our 'PC' climate, which has us forever finding ways to defer to other cultures and be 'enlightened' enough to be 'hyper-receptive' to what they'll say.

Our own psychology is, thanks to long-term social conditioning (from the Left !), disgustingly weak.

So here we are, in a political soup, driven to weakness, some of it entirely home-grown.

If, by some miracle, all of this IS resolved through diplomacy, will we be alert to future belligerence from Iran ? We'll be aware of the possibility of it, BUT, there'll be a lot of back-slapping congratulations because ours will be domestically seen as the 'far better, more civilised and decent' answer to a crisis. Precious few people are going to see our approach as weak, therefore, wrong-headed: indeed, we'll probably wonder why Trump can't 'be more civilised' and 'tolerant' of Iran in future.

This is what chiefly infuriates me ! We absolutely WILL NOT LEARN, UNLESS FORCED TO.

I don't understand your country well enough to get this. Why is it you never have applied for US permanent visa? If you were American I'd find you sort of at the level of 'hate America.' Maybe I just don't understand.

[Drummond]

I don't understand your country well enough to get this. Why is it you never have applied for US permanent visa? If you were American I'd find you sort of at the level of 'hate America.' Maybe I just don't understand.

I think I must agree. You do not understand. But then .. neither do I.

Are you saying that my seeing things in a pro-American way must mean I should move to America ? Why does the one follow from the other ? I have enormous sympathy for Ukraine, and the disgusting way Russia treats them .. but I have no plans or wish to move to that part of the world, either.

You say if I was American, I'd be 'sort of' at the level of 'hate America' .. ? Now this completely baffles me. Why does my thinking equate in any way to 'hating' America ??

I can only think you've mis-typed, or you're suffering from a total misunderstanding of what I'm all about.

[Kathianne]

I think I must agree. You do not understand. But then .. neither do I.

Are you saying that my seeing things in a pro-American way must mean I should move to America ? Why does the one follow from the other ? I have enormous sympathy for Ukraine, and the disgusting way Russia treats them .. but I have no plans or wish to move to that part of the world, either.

I am not saying you MUST do anything, just that your rah rah American views are a bit disconcerting. You do know that the Democrats have more members than Republicans? That even amongst those that are in favor of Trump, most wish he were not as he is? I too have sympathy for the people in the Ukraine, those who would most definitely love to be admitted to US or even the UK, but I have no desire to move there either. Your talk is always of how disappointed, disgusted, and dismayed you are at the UK, but I hear very little positive about it, from you.

I want my country to improve, but whether my discontent is from extremes on the political spectrum or individuals like the squad or Trump, I do not fail to see why, still, it is the best place to be, in my opinion.

You say if I was American, I'd be 'sort of' at the level of 'hate America' .. ? Now this completely baffles me. Why does my thinking equate in any way to 'hating' America ??

I can only think you've mis-typed, or you're suffering from a total misunderstanding of what I'm all about.

I meant that while you are saying that IF Britain acted more like America, control the 'liberals' the country would return to what it should be. Still you argue that for over 1/2 your life, that isn't the way she goes.

[Gunny]

This all comes down to mindsets. The psychology involved. Particularly - the perception held in my part of the world that ending the Iran nuke deal was an extremely bad move, and that Trump needs to do a 180 degree turn and re-institute it, pronto.

The EU (and to a degree, the UK) holds to the position that the deal needs to be saved. Whether from purely pragmatic motivations or out of an actual 'sympathy' for Iran, what all the powers in my region want is for things to be smoothed over, defused.

[We've seen sympathy-pieces on BBC News, detailing how the 'poor Iranians' are suffering, thanks to 'aggressive' sanctions they are a 'victim' of ....]

On the one hand, they can't view the seizure of the British tanker as something to take a tolerant view over. On the other, they're still scrambling around for diplomatic answers, because they hope that just to be seen doing that may get Tehran to see us more favourably.

In the UK's case, though .. I'm sure Iran views us as a more natural ally of the US, and weaker, therefore, ripe for picking on.

On the UK side - and, critically - we're hamstrung by our 'PC' climate, which has us forever finding ways to defer to other cultures and be 'enlightened' enough to be 'hyper-receptive' to what they'll say.

Our own psychology is, thanks to long-term social conditioning (from the Left !), disgustingly weak.

So here we are, in a political soup, driven to weakness, some of it entirely home-grown.

If, by some miracle, all of this IS resolved through diplomacy, will we be alert to future belligerence from Iran ? We'll be aware of the possibility of it, BUT, there'll be a lot of back-slapping congratulations because ours will be domestically seen as the 'far better, more civilised and decent' answer to a crisis. Precious few people are going to see our approach as weak, therefore, wrong-headed: indeed, we'll probably wonder why Trump can't 'be more civilised' and 'tolerant' of Iran in future.

This is what chiefly infuriates me ! We absolutely WILL NOT LEARN, UNLESS FORCED TO.

My opinion. I don't get why the EU/UK are so dead-set on living up to a one-sided deal that only slows down the process of Iran getting nukes. Is Chamberlain doing its thinking for it? The picture of "Peace in our time" is infamous; yet, pointless if the lesson isn't learned. THAT is stupid.

Iran is going to have to be dealt with. It isn't going away nor is there an "Abraham Lincoln" waiting in the wings to take over. It is going to have to be dealt with by force. I see zero reason to ensure they have armed themselves to the teeth and becoming a formidable opponent when they can be stopped NOW.

Other side of the coin: I was against and am still against Trump bullying so-called "allies" into who they can and cannot deal with. Trump pulled out of the deal and I'm completely fine with that. However, he/we/the US doesn't own the world. The whole point to all these useless organizations is to get a consensus that is best for everyone, not just one Nation. I don't like them either, but let's not pretend to be friends with these other countries if all we are going to do is tell them what to do.

F*ck Iran. And since I forgot earlier in the thread, REALLY f*ck France. That puss-hole probably would surrender to itself.

I am all for supporting the UK if it chooses to act. But the UK is going to have to choose and quit riding the fence because I'm not for saving Europe from itself. Again. They're already trying to get out of the EU.

This whole mess is a bunch of horseshit because our previous President. When one has the power to rule the world, one must use that power wisely. Not waste it kissing ass to a Nation of criminals just to go against everything the US stood for up to that point.

[Drummond]

My opinion. I don't get why the EU/UK are so dead-set on living up to a one-sided deal that only slows down the process of Iran getting nukes. Is Chamberlain doing its thinking for it? The picture of "Peace in our time" is infamous; yet, pointless if the lesson isn't learned. THAT is stupid.

Iran is going to have to be dealt with. It isn't going away nor is there an "Abraham Lincoln" waiting in the wings to take over. It is going to have to be dealt with by force. I see zero reason to ensure they have armed themselves to the teeth and becoming a formidable opponent when they can be stopped NOW.

Other side of the coin: I was against and am still against Trump bullying so-called "allies" into who they can and cannot deal with. Trump pulled out of the deal and I'm completely fine with that. However, he/we/the US doesn't own the world. The whole point to all these useless organizations is to get a consensus that is best for everyone, not just one Nation. I don't like them either, but let's not pretend to be friends with these other countries if all we are going to do is tell them what to do.

F*ck Iran. And since I forgot earlier in the thread, REALLY f*ck France. That puss-hole probably would surrender to itself.

I am all for supporting the UK if it chooses to act. But the UK is going to have to choose and quit riding the fence because I'm not for saving Europe from itself. Again. They're already trying to get out of the EU.

This whole mess is a bunch of horseshit because our previous President. When one has the power to rule the world, one must use that power wisely. Not waste it kissing ass to a Nation of criminals just to go against everything the US stood for up to that point.

I think it comes down to naivety, and the enormous damage the Left has done, over decades, to our thinking. They've made it a part of our culture to see others in a 'kind', 'deferential', so-called 'understanding' way .. often in complete defiance of commonsense.

Many people here have a misguided faith that Iran cannot be the 'villain' ... in the accepted sense. They think that talk of them being that is propagandist. We see very much the same thing in the way so many people see Islamic terrorists as 'extremists', in no way representative of 'more enlightened, mainstream' Islam. We could be nuked to hell and back by Muslim terrorists, but still, remarkably few people would see Islam as being at fault.

Tehran's regime will be seen as not being 'quite like us'. But talk of their being warmongers, wholesale terrorist enablers, belligerent in the extreme ... a lot of people take that with a pinch of salt. Always, you see, the equivocation arguments are seen to have weight to them. Have Trump sound off against the threat Iran poses ... and many here won't take it literally. They'll be seen to be the victims of Trump's hostility, with their 'poor people suffering' because of him.

When Obama rounded on the UK, both over the BP oil spill, and his insistence that we must remain in the EU or be put to the back of the queue for trade deals, the reactions were of sheer shock, both because of his arrogant judgmentality and his willingness to dictate to us from a position of hostility. People LIKED Obama here. Obama himself joked that he was better liked abroad than at home; I think he was right.

Trump's seen as the polar opposite to him, so, he's painted as extreme, bigoted, not to be automatically believed. Recent commentary has been united in condemnation for his 'racism' ... nobody sees any other side to the argument than that.

So with Iran: few here think the painting of Iran as being a great threat is accurate, and thinking here is that diplomacy is likely to work because, at heart, Iranian regime members are 'reasonable' thinkers, reacting to sanctions they're a 'victim' of.

We have a lot to learn. Leftie equivocation propaganda holds sway here, and I think we'll need to understand the truth of Iran's hostility the hard way. Jeremy Hunt is one figure who clearly needs to learn. I believe his 'extreme disappointment' with Iran over the tanker seizure isn't just diplomacy talking: he means what he says. He doesn't comprehend Iran as the enemy power it is.

[Kathianne]

Whichever know it all wrote that "failed" opinion needs to get HIS ass on a frigate in the Gulf THEN talk shit and pass judgement. It takes a day with both boilers hittin' it to get from one end of the Gulf to the other. People talk about the Gulf like it's this tiny puddle of mostly land-locked water. One way in and out is true. Little doesn't even come close.

While these EU countries want to leave out the US in dealing with Iran, that's akin to ignoring the elephant in the room. The only way to "be prepared" in this context is to escort each ship individually. I don't see that happening.

While the EU most definitely is not overly fond of the US President, they have to be a bit miffed at all the Brexit talk as well? France and Germany working together? How quaint.

[Drummond]

While the EU most definitely is not overly fond of the US President, they have to be a bit miffed at all the Brexit talk as well? France and Germany working together? How quaint.

That's surely for another thread ?

France and Germany NOT working together is somewhat rare. I don't see why you regard it as 'quaint'. Much has changed over the decades, and common EU-based interests have done much to bring both countries' political attitudes together.

Brexit ... better discussed elsewhere. But both countries take an almost totally unified stance on it. Germany's a bit more sympathetic (just a bit) towards us having yet more time before we must leave than France is, to help solve the 'deal/no deal' situation. Otherwise, their views are in lockstep.

[Kathianne]

That's surely for another thread ?

France and Germany NOT working together is somewhat rare. I don't see why you regard it as 'quaint'. Much has changed over the decades, and common EU-based interests have done much to bring both countries' political attitudes together.

Brexit ... better discussed elsewhere. But both countries take an almost totally unified stance on it. Germany's a bit more sympathetic (just a bit) towards us having yet more time before we must leave than France is, to help solve the 'deal/no deal' situation. Otherwise, their views are in lockstep.

I disagree. France and Germany NOT working with UK and US is not smart, on so many levels-74 years later or not.

To the first, it does seem that Trump is miffed at UK for ambassador's comments-that he was not to ever know about. France & Germany miffed at UK for Brexit. All three Euros miffed at US, because. Trump.

Meanwhile, Iran is doing what it can to cause choas and possibly start a war, which is much more likely with allies miffed at each other.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Kat , you are wrong. Drummond has zero hate for USA. In fact he cares far more for USA than any damn dem politician alive and far more than most ordinary dem voters that constantly betray this nation with their ideology and their damn votes.
I think I may know my friend Drummond far better than any other member here does.
He is certainly pro-american in his thinking.
I too have asked him why he does not relocate to USA, since in my opinion Britain will eventually fall to Islam and be under its control.
He basically refuses to run away-- that my friend is courage. Same as I too, refuse to ever run away from this my home, my nation.
Choosing instead to stay to fight if need be for what I cherish.
His description of Britain and the lunacy of its politicians is spot on. As is his description of what that lunacy has done to its culture.
It may be that we fail to properly understand his words--but I damn sure know for sure that he does not hate this country and does not
think it proper to abandon his own country for what future safety may lie here.
Just my two cents worth my friend.--Tyr

[jimnyc]

Whichever know it all wrote that "failed" opinion needs to get HIS ass on a frigate in the Gulf THEN talk shit and pass judgement. It takes a day with both boilers hittin' it to get from one end of the Gulf to the other. People talk about the Gulf like it's this tiny puddle of mostly land-locked water. One way in and out is true. Little doesn't even come close.

While these EU countries want to leave out the US in dealing with Iran, that's akin to ignoring the elephant in the room. The only way to "be prepared" in this context is to escort each ship individually. I don't see that happening.

Sorry man, it was me that added it to the title. I did so and when I did I had the British government in mind. (if similar to us anyway). Just as Trump would be responsible for getting the military alerted and sending them to the Middle East and I would also assume the amount being sent. With that in mind is when I was thinking of failure, that the British did not send enough over there to have enough participation in order to protect. I do believe they have a more sizable Navy and had they sent the multitude of ships they probably and most likely would have stopped that. 1 aircraft carrier and two amphibious ships. They have six destroyers and 13 frigates. Then they have some kick ass Patrol boats to go along and travel behind all of them. It looks like these patrol boats are designed for speed. The list continues to go on but it appears that that is the majority of their fighting fleet, where some of those patrol boats look like they are designated for specific areas?

My intent was to call out the British government and they were the ones I was referring to as losers. I 100% did not have any military minded people in mind when I wrote that, British or American. And even with the government and the loser comment it was in reference to just this one situation. I think at least everyone knows by now that I wouldn't purposely insult our military or the British military. It was obviously just a very poor timing to use that word. I apologize to anyone that may have read that and thought that I was insulting to either military or personally.

[STTAB]

Whichever know it all wrote that "failed" opinion needs to get HIS ass on a frigate in the Gulf THEN talk shit and pass judgement. It takes a day with both boilers hittin' it to get from one end of the Gulf to the other. People talk about the Gulf like it's this tiny puddle of mostly land-locked water. One way in and out is true. Little doesn't even come close.

While these EU countries want to leave out the US in dealing with Iran, that's akin to ignoring the elephant in the room. The only way to "be prepared" in this context is to escort each ship individually. I don't see that happening.

Even we don't have the ship power to escort ships individually. What we'll have to do is go old school and start running escorted convoys. Now that runs some dangers of it own as we found out a few time versus German Wolkpacks, but on the whole there is security in numbers and I don't see the Iranians being stupid enough to directly attack a vessel that is part of a convoy that is being protected by any first world Navy.

Either that or we just barricade Iran's Navy in their own docks. You leave port, we sink you, but that kinda defeats the argument that the sea is open to save travel for all LOL

[Kathianne]

Some good news. . .

Europe coalition:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a9016301.html

Iran tanker crisis: Jeremy Hunt announces joint European task force to protect British ships
Foreign secretary accuses Iran of taking part in ‘state piracy’ as he condemns seizure of the Stena Impero

The UK will seek to organise a European-led naval contingent for the Gulf to escort ships following an “act of state piracy” by Iran in seizing a British tanker.


Jeremy Hunt told the Commons that discussions have taken place with a number of allied states in the last 48 hours on the forming of a protection force with further talks to be held later this week.


The foreign secretary said: “It is with a heavy heart that we are announcing this increased international presence in the Gulf because the focus of our diplomacy has been on de-escalating tensions in the hope that such changes would not be necessary.”

...

@Drummond or @Noir how likely are EU members to join with UK?