BREAKING: Iran Forces Seize US Cargo Ship With 34 People On Board

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
There is only 2 types of ships in the region - Military and Merchant Tankers / general cargo.

IF true, this could only be a merchant vessel as no-one is stupid enough to fire on a US Navy vessel (it would not be "escorted" anywhere let me give you the tip)

The US Navy is in the region, as are US owned / flagged merchant vessels.

I GUARANTEE the vessel in question has breached sovereign waters and is now paying the price under IMO (International Maritime Organization) protocols.

Prepare for BS propaganda to say otherwise, but I HAVE vessels in the region too and the US are ship-stirrers around the Strait of Hormuz - have been "testing the waters" for a while now.

Pun intended.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
That's incorrect. Iran for a long time has illegally claimed waters that are by international law areas of "safe passage" due to them being part of the straits of Hormuz. Iran has done stuff like this before.

You are correct NavyDoc, but his last paragraph of us being ship-stirrers is literally true, we move in and out and do various things to gauge reactions, I have done all sorts of these in various and increasingly imaginative means.

originally posted by: saadad
haman10 can you give us some feedback what are Iranian newspaper saying about this?

My friend , i think except ATS , no one actually cared . cause Iranian news agencies and even forums and social media are all absolutely silent

just a headline and thats it .

a reply to: haman10

No just because its named "THE PERSIAN GULF" does not mean it belongs to IRAN. The waters around the various countries were SOLD in the past to those countries BY IRAN BTW when it was under another government. The paperwork can be found if you search for it.

With regards to Waters and claims...



IF the Ship was in its proper lane they dont even need to ask Iran for permission to transit as long as they do not cross that maritime line on the NAVIGATIONAL CHARTS.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: haman10

No just because its named "THE PERSIAN GULF" does not mean it belongs to IRAN. The waters around the various countries were SOLD in the past to those countries BY IRAN BTW when it was under another government. The paperwork can be found if you search for it.

With regards to Waters and claims...



IF the Ship was in its proper lane they dont even need to ask Iran for permission to transit as long as they do not cross that maritime line on the map.

Is that during the time when the US had a puppet government in Iran?

a reply to: haman10

Well the original came from zero-hedge, and I don't find them to be a solid source. Newsweek started to run the story, but then they deleted it, so until we have some real information, I think we simply don't know much about this.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Doc, I love you like a brother, lets just wait and see exactly where she was. The AIS and ECDIS (electronic charts) data files will show her course and the VDR (Vessel data recorder) will track any conversations on VHF etc.....as long as the skipper activated it.

Shenanigans in the past - absolutely no denying that, but Iran has nothing to gain and everything to lose and they are not stupid so this, imo, requires a little more investigation. I have a vessel "in the area" and am awaiting feedback.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: haman10

Haman,
If Iran claims the entire Persian Gulf is under their control, how are U.S. Naval warships in the gulf allowed?
Does Iran grant them permission?
Also, what about the other countries in the Persian Gulf? Do they claim waters, as well?

Well , there are international regulations about Persian gulf . since we have most of the shores , we apparently have most of the water territories as well .

All USN ships ask permission from Iran to get into Persian gulf since we control the way in . we cannot say no to their request per international laws . any ships that enters the gulf should state where they wanna go . if its not Iran , then IRIN should give green light to them . Oman controls the way out , the exact same thing can be said here .

a reply to: Sublimecraft

I'm definitely looking forward to what you find out!

a reply to: crazyewok


Look he antagonize cowboys to attack his country I responded in jest. No body gives a flying # about that weak country. And frankly let's not talk if's and but's the March to Tehran would be a 24 hour event, judging by history there is no denying that. So why antagonize why stereotype us, screw them and the horse they rode in on with that senitment l, no one cares about that country but they certainly don't want us to start caring with that attitude. I'm 27 there haman I am a veteran you have no idea what your talking about, and don't see Your threat you put out there that started this whole conversation.

MV Maersk Tigris, a Danish owned vessel registered in the Marshall Islands.

Is this something to do with the US?

It probably wasn't so long ago that this ship could have been a regular visitor to Iran's port where the US 'Blacked' the ports "Tidewater Co" because it is supposedly run by Iran's republican guard. Before that, Maersk had brisk business with Iran, and has also been fined heavily by the US for sanction busting elsewhere. Who knows...maybe Iran is doing a little sneaky 'false flag' to get in some provisions with a little help from Maersk, at least it's plausible! BTW There are no Americans on board either it seems.

originally posted by: TechniXcality
So why antagonize why stereotype us,

Because we do exactly the same to them.

Does the fact we are stronger make it right from us?

Its just a silly circle of aggression.

I'm 27 too but no im not a vet. But you are and surely you know how horrible war is? Thats what I hear from military friends. war at the the moment is all pointless.

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: wasaka

LOL, Hence the bold.

yes, I just notice the same thing and
wanted to post... seeing you had beat
me to it, I just quoted you.

It was worth repeating.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: NavyDoc

Doc, I love you like a brother, lets just wait and see exactly where she was. The AIS and ECDIS (electronic charts) data files will show her course and the VDR (Vessel data recorder) will track any conversations on VHF etc.....as long as the skipper activated it.

Shenanigans in the past - absolutely no denying that, but Iran has nothing to gain and everything to lose and they are not stupid so this, imo, requires a little more investigation. I have a vessel "in the area" and am awaiting feedback.

People don't know the situation .

i mean some people even don't know the difference between Iraq and Iran - tell me if i'm wrong .

When they hear the word "Iran" what comes to their mind is probably mahmoud ahmadinejad's quote about destruction of Israel .

In reality , this is what happened today in NY :

NY : Iranian and American FMs meet

a reply to: bullcat

I think it was before the Shah like after WW2 but just because a government changes hands does not mean their treaties and sales cease to exist. As long as the other party has its papers the UN will back the claims.

@haman. Was the ship Heading INTO the gulf on the Iranian side? If they were then Yeah they had the right to search it,but if they were using the OMAN side even in the wrong direction then the Iranians were in the wrong.

And really the US navy just ask as a COURTESY to the iranians and can sail in when they want to actually.

a reply to: crazyewok

No throwing empty threats is baseless no matter who does it.

originally posted by: haman10

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: haman10

Haman,
If Iran claims the entire Persian Gulf is under their control, how are U.S. Naval warships in the gulf allowed?
Does Iran grant them permission?
Also, what about the other countries in the Persian Gulf? Do they claim waters, as well?

Well , there are international regulations about Persian gulf . since we have most of the shores , we apparently have most of the water territories as well .

All USN ships ask permission from Iran to get into Persian gulf since we control the way in . we cannot say no to their request per international laws . any ships that enters the gulf should state where they wanna go . if its not Iran , then IRIN should give green light to them . Oman controls the way out , the exact same thing can be said here .

Okay. Thanks.
You stated that Iran has most of the shores, so therefor claims most of the water territories, however, maps would tend to dispute that. Please explain, as it appears that, geographically, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, U.A.E. & Oman would have as much shoreline...or more than Iran.

originally posted by: haman10

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: IAMTAT

There is only 2 types of ships in the region - Military and Merchant Tankers / general cargo.

IF true, this could only be a merchant vessel as no-one is stupid enough to fire on a US Navy vessel (it would not be "escorted" anywhere let me give you the tip)

The US Navy is in the region, as are US owned / flagged merchant vessels.

I GUARANTEE the vessel in question has breached sovereign waters and is now paying the price under IMO (International Maritime Organization) protocols.

Prepare for BS propaganda to say otherwise, but I HAVE vessels in the region too and the US are ship-stirrers around the Strait of Hormuz - have been "testing the waters" for a while now.

Pun intended.

That's incorrect. Iran for a long time has illegally claimed waters that are by international law areas of "safe passage" due to them being part of the straits of Hormuz. Iran has done stuff like this before.

Such as ? which illegally claimed water ?

oh lord have mercy

According to international law, a country cannot claim a strait as national waters if that strait is the way to transit to other countries and, also by international law, said country must allow peaceful passage of ships through that strait. Iran has, illegally and against all international laws, claimed the strait as their territorial waters and for decades occasionally tries to seize ships and/or prevent passage through the straits. This is nothing new.

An international strait, as noted in paragraph 2.3.3 of The Commander's
Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations (NWP 9)1 is a strait used for
international navigation between one part of the high seas or an exclusive
economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic
zone. The definition comes from articles 37 and 38 of the 1982 United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea,2 and includes both straits which at some
point are overlapped by the territorial seas of the bordering State or States,3
and those straits through which there is a continuous corridor of high seas
or an exclusive economic zone (EEZ).4 A strait is a natural waterway, "a
contraction of the sea between two territories, being of limited width."5
There are in the world over two hundred waterways which would appear
to satisfy the requirements of being an "international strait."6

According to the LOS Convention, a regime of transit passage prevails with
regard both to ships and aircraft through an international strait that is
overlapped at least at its narrowest part by bordering territorial seas.7 Transit
passage, "which shall not be impeded,"8 means "the exercise ... of the
freedom of navigation and overflight solely for the purpose of continuous
and expeditious transit of the strait."

A State bordering an international strait may adopt laws and regulations
relating to "the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person
in contravention of the customs, fiscal, immigration, or sanitary laws and
regulations" of the bordering State.34 Any bordering State's laws or
regulations relating to sea lanes and traffic separation schemes, or to the
loading or unloading of any commodity, currency, or person "shall not
discriminate in form or in fact among foreign ships or in their application
have the practical effect of denying, hampering or impairing the right of
transit passage.35
According to the LOS Convention, there are two additional duties of a
state bordering a strait. One is that it "give appropriate publicity to any
danger to navigation or overflight within or over the strait of which [it has]
knowledge."36 The second is that it should by agreement with user States
cooperate in the establishment and maintenance of "necessary navigational
and safety aids or other improvements in aid of international navigation. "37
NWP 9 would benefit from inclusion of these duties in its treatment of
international straits.

PDF of textbook on maritime law can be found here:www.usnwc.edu...

originally posted by: yuppa
And really the US navy just ask as a COURTESY to the iranians and can sail in when they want to actually.

Incorrect.

The US must us the Oman Transit Passage if they are following the "law".

But, the "law" only ever seems to apply when it is "the other guy".

The UN placed the transit passage in Oman waters specifically because Iran never ratified UNCLOS.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: NavyDoc

Doc, I love you like a brother, lets just wait and see exactly where she was. The AIS and ECDIS (electronic charts) data files will show her course and the VDR (Vessel data recorder) will track any conversations on VHF etc.....as long as the skipper activated it.

Shenanigans in the past - absolutely no denying that, but Iran has nothing to gain and everything to lose and they are not stupid so this, imo, requires a little more investigation. I have a vessel "in the area" and am awaiting feedback.

The US Navy has done freedom of navigation exercises since there was a US Navy. This wasn't even a naval vessel--just a transiting merchantman.

The region they were in is used to transit and has been so for a long time so, unless new information comes up about them being way out of their lane, the Iranians are the ones playing silly bollocks here.

a reply to: NavyDoc
Iran never ratified UNCLOS.

They are not bound by it. Unless you wish to openly state that every treaty the US has signed, but not ratified, the US is now bound by, as well.