0 $
2,500 $
5,000 $
125 $
JULY 2020

British Oil Tanker Seeks Shelter Over Fears It Could Be Seized By Iran

Donate

Originally appeared at ZeroHedge

After a former IRGC commander exhorted his government to take a British oil tanker hostage following the seizure by Royal Marines last week of a vessel hauling Iranian crude, an oil tanker run by British Petroleum is sheltering in the Persian Gulf over fears it could soon be seized by Iran in a tit-for-tat response, Bloomberg reports.

British Oil Tanker Seeks Shelter Over Fears It Could Be Seized By Iran

British Heritage

The tanker, which is named ‘British Heritage’, is able to haul about 1 million barrels of crude. It had been sailing toward Iraq’s Basrah oil terminal when it made an abrupt U-turn over the weekend.

The ship is now hanging out near Saudi Arabia’s coast because BP is reportedly worried that the vessel could be targeted if Iran seeks to retaliate for the seizure of the tanker Grace 1 on Thursday.

The Grace 1 was seized after being caught transporting Iranian crude, in breach of sanctions.

British Heritage, registered in the Isle of Man and flying under the British flag, had been chartered by Royal Dutch Shell Plc to transport crude from Basrah to northwest Europe. However, it never collected its cargo and the booking was canceled.

Of course, the ship won’t be able to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, the chokepoint through which about 1/3 of global oil shipped by sea moves, without sailing close to Iran’s coast. It’s unclear how long the ship will be sheltering for.

British Oil Tanker Seeks Shelter Over Fears It Could Be Seized By Iran

Iran’s deputy foreign minister said on Sunday he considered the seizure of Grace 1 to be an ‘act of piracy,’ while a former leader of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard said the Islamic Republic should take a British tanker in response.

While it’s owners apparently believe the British Heritage to be ‘safe’ in Saudi custody, we wouldn’t be surprised if it was conveniently and mysteriously ‘bombed’ like the handful of other tankers over the past few months – an incident that the UK and KSA would have no problem pinning on the Iranians.

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • omrizkiblog

    British Heritage? Must be Slavery & lots of Genocide… ☕

    • You can call me Al

      Do you think that is even remotely amusing ?.

      • bla

        not amusing but plain TRUTH , slavery and genocide is the British heritage to the human race.
        DEAL WITH IT

        • Sinbad2

          Actually the British blockaded the US to stop slave ships.
          You can bring many charges against the UK, but slavery is not one of them.

          • ©igare☘☘e👽Sm⚽️k🚬ng🦉Man️🎲

            Maybe he means economic slavery… or actually thieving, yeah thats the one, thieves is a more appropriate word for the English.

        • You can call me Al

          I know that; in my mind, I was a gentlemen hunting, double barrelled shotgun across my chest and a small smirk.

      • goingbrokes

        That is a cheap shot, and most people will see it as such. British Empire may have a lot to answer for but is should not be confused with British heritage.

  • TiredOfBsToo

    “…we wouldn’t be surprised if it was conveniently and mysteriously ‘bombed’ like the handful of other tankers..”

    If I were the owner of that ship, I would seek refuge with Iran for protection from the UK, for which it is highly likely that the UK would use the ship as a vessel to launch the war it’s psychopaths crave.

  • chris chuba

    Since the U.K. seized the tanker under the authority of the EU, if the EU does not require the U.K. to release the tanker in a timely manner then Iran is legally entitled to seize any EU member state tankers. And that is how the demonic Pompeo / Bolton axis get their war and make it look like it is Iran’s fault.

    As best as I can tell all of the EU states, including the UK are parties to UNCLOS, how do they justify placing EU law above an international treaty?

    • Ronald

      Gregory Casey replied to you a couple of days back, regarding EU law.
      British actions are counter to EU law, and as such are an Act of Piracy.
      EU has no sanctions against buying oil from Iran.
      EU sanctions Do prohibit the purchase of oil FROM Syria.
      EU sanctions do Not prohibit the purchase of oil TO Syria.
      Britain seized the ship on the mistaken idea that as the ship was destined for Syria, the intent was to “sell to Syria”, “and therefore illegal” which it is Not.

      • Brother Ma

        Rule of law started to be ignored since UN proclamations re Israel taking over more than was allowed in1948 ,Turkey ignoring its mandate after it invaded Cyprus and zio/americanophiles ignoring UNmandate since the Yugoslav wars of 1990s.

        There is now just MIGHT and no RIGHT. I believe in international law but Uncle Sam and Shmuel don’t .So until someone gives them a caning to their buttocks that is how they will behave;not caring.

        • Mustafa Mehmet

          Correction Turkey did not invade Cyprus. Liberate their own land to save Turkish Cypriot … been massacre by Greeks

        • Ronald

          Turkey’s lack of respect for its neighbors borders, be it Cyprus or Syria, is not the issue.
          Britain has engaged in an Act of Piracy against Iran, that is the issue.
          Britain did this claiming to act as a member of the EU.
          Hence the EU courts will rule for or against Iran should it lay charges against Britain in those courts.

          • Brother Ma

            Who says it is not the issue. Turkish intransigance and belligerance has always been an issue.

          • Ronald

            Agree fully Turkish intransigence has been a long term problem, really the problem with expansionist Islam.

            But the issue of Britain’s piracy of an Iranian ship, is the “issue” focused on in this discussion.

    • occupybacon

      UK marine admitted 2 days ago they sized the ship at request from the US army. Bolton thanked already. NATO countries military respond to US commands. That’s the deal.

      • grumpy_carpenter

        It wouldn’t be the US Army that requested the seizure but the US state department. US army’s chain of command runs through the White House. They don’t make policy or issue requests of foreign governments …. the White House does that. It wasn’t a NATO operation but an EU operation so NATO chain of command, which doesn’t flow through the US military, is irrelevant.

        • verner

          nit picking which is sort of useless – suffice to say that it was on instructions from the disintegrating states of A and that bolton, this oxymoron national security advisor, expressed his thanks to the brits who are living no longer under the adage – britannia rules the waves’ but rather ‘britannia waives the rules’ which is tantamount to a former something down on its uppers.

          so you can bet your broad behind that bolton is the source of the request and not anyone else.

          • grumpy_carpenter

            I might be nit picking but it’s important to lay the blame at the correct feet. I’m willing to bet that US forces stationed in the ME want no part of an unnecessary war with Iran. They must know there are 350 million Shia in the region and there are big fat targets painted on their bases. I don’t care how brave or indoctrinated they are or how much faith they have in their cloaks of invisibility they know they are Boltons tethered goats for the purpose of mounting an all out war on Iran and the second action of the war is going to be against them

          • Brother Ma

            350million?

          • grumpy_carpenter

            The number of Shia in the ME is estimated to be between 325k and 400k so I used 350k.

          • Brother Ma

            Ok so 80 from Iran and the rest from the rest . Really? Seems almost impossible to me to get shia of Turkey ,Lebanon,Iraq ,Syria etc to add up to the balance. I wish it was so but it seems like an exaggeration. Yet ,if you have read it I believe you as you seem like a well-grounded person from your writings.

          • verner

            but even 80m in iran and say 10 15 million in Iraq will be enough to stifle any attack the disintegrating states of A might have in mind – and lo and behold, even in the sheikdoms on the western side of the persian gulf you will find shias, now severely oppressed, being a threat against uae, bahrain and even saudi arabia where discontent is everywhere but suppressed with violence and beheadings.

          • grumpy_carpenter

            Someone posted the 400 number in response to a post I made the other day. I went to wiki to verify and they quoted a range of 325 to 400 in the ME. Thanks for considering me ‘well grounded’. Could you do me a favour and tell that to Mrs. grumpy?

          • Sinbad2

            “Why, of course, the people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship”(Hermann Göring).

          • verner

            pentagon, always looking for war or warlike situations, concluded after the vietnam debacle/defeat that it would not be able to go to war with conscripts, like in vietnam and thus converted the forces to a standing one with the marines as the backbone and then layers of semi-professional soldiers. a conscripted army would always be subject to the families and mothers of the poor fuckers that came home in body bags and that was not tenable from a warring situation. professional marines signed up for 7 years is another matter however,they sign up and know that the name of the game is war and if they come back in body bags, tough luck but no one can really complain, particularly not the mothers.

            and the source from where all those professional marines can be drawn is limitless with the unemployable and under-educated white dudes from the fly over states where the option is either meth-amphetamine cocking or join the marines, the first will land you in jail and an early death and the second will possibly give you an early death but at least you will see the world.

            strangedysfunctional place the disintegrating states of A

          • Brother Ma

            I tend to agree with you. Grumpy has sounded out how things should work but somewhere, someone is not following protocol and the UK ,Murica’s vassal have just become Cannon fodder !

        • occupybacon

          Thanks for the clarification.

      • Sinbad2

        Did it measure up? ;)

        • occupybacon

          He an Bibi said they could still be tougher

      • Aquilegia

        Seems to me lately that UK is pretty much the last in NATO responding to US orders.

        • occupybacon

          Wishful thinking

          • Aquilegia

            Certainly a lot has changed since the peak hysteria years of 2014-2015. NATO still exists yes, but more and more members are the sort of inactive type, excluding some random war exercise.

    • Brother Ma

      Same way they place their own aims above any applicable law. They don’t care and won’t change till someone blackens their eye!

  • occupybacon

    Copy-paste text from Al Jazeera and the image from Bloomberg.

    • Luke Hemmming

      At the beginning of the article it says originally appeared at Zerohedge. It also quoted a Bloomberg article. So what’s your point little pig?

      • occupybacon

        They added the sources after my comment. I feel like the copyright police :)

  • You can call me Al
  • Jacob “Wraith” Wohl

    IRGC know if they mess with Britain, the SAS will demolish them.
    1 SAS fighter could defeat 50 irgc towel heads

    • Balázs Jávorszky

      Hm, regular Iraqi troops easily took prisoner SAS fighters before the 2nd Gulf war when they operated without extensive air cover. So no, you’re not right.

    • verner

      idiot

      • Mustafa Mehmet

        Because he’s telling the truth

    • Wolfgang Wolf

      our Jewish ziocon egghead is posting bs again)))

    • Luke Hemmming

      Hahaha the IRGC? afraid of the SAS? Hahaha you got to be kidding Wohl mole. You high bruh?

      • Jacob “Wraith” Wohl

        yeah, I’m very high on knowledge and facts!

  • Floyd Hazzard

    I’m amazed at the shameless extra-territorial powers these Europeans and their Descendants seem to think they have. They think they can just make utterances in their countries and the whole world is duty bound to obey them? That’s colonial arrogance comparable to slavery, but I’m glad the world is getting to see NATO and Five Eyes for what they are, which are instruments of white supremacy, global domination and coloured peoples subjugation.
    Ask England if they would let their army sit by while rebels armed by exterior powers ransack Britain?

  • Floyd Hazzard

    Britain is only half out the EU, but it has already gone fully rogue, just like the master. I wonder if the British army would be allowed to sit idly by rebels armed by exterior powers ransack Britain?

  • goingbrokes

    This is starting to look like a run up to a false flag attack on the British tanker.

    • Luke Hemmming

      Yes watch this space. You could be right there.

  • Assad must stay (gr8rambino)

    Iran should surround it and not let it escape lol

  • iosongasingsing
  • JC

    why why why why why does the west put up with the zionist..for the sake of humanity eliminate them all once and for all