The prime minister will chair the government's emergency committee Cobra on Monday after a British-flagged tanker was seized by Iran in the Gulf.

Theresa May is expected to receive updates from ministers and officials and discuss maintaining the security of shipping in the area.

It comes amid reports ministers are considering freezing Iranian assets.

Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt is expected to update MPs later on further measures the government will take.

On Sunday, ministers denied domestic politics meant the government had taken its "eye off the ball".

The detainment of the Stena Impero marks escalating tensions between the UK and Iran, coming weeks after Britain helped seize a tanker carrying Iranian oil.

Read more:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49067166

Note there are about 400 cargo ships and 20 warships within the strait of hormuz at anyone time: Daily oil flow in the Strait of Hormuz averaged 21 million barrels per day in 2018...

“As a shipping company and part of the global shipping industry, we are taking the threat to our crew and ships very seriously,” Anthony Gurnee, CEO of Ardmore Shipping, told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Europe” on Tuesday.

Ardmore Shipping is a U.S.-listed company based in Ireland, with a business of owning and operating a fleet of tankers that move refined oil products.

“At the moment, it is business as usual (but) insurance to transit the Strait of Hormuz has actually increased 10-fold in the last two months as a consequence of the attacks,” Gurnee said.

The attacks brought the U.S. and Iran close to conflict last month. President Donald Trump called off air strikes at the last minute in retaliation for Iran shooting down a U.S. drone over the Gulf, which followed attacks on two oil product tankers in the nearby Gulf of Oman by unidentified assailants.

Washington has blamed Iran for the attacks on four oil tankers in the same area on May 12. Tehran has denied the allegations.

“Whoever is doing this has demonstrated that they have the ability to be very destructive,” Gurnee said.

Every ship needs various forms of insurance, including annual war-risk cover as well as an additional ‘breach’ premium when entering high-risk areas. These separate premiums are calculated according to the value of the ship, or hull, for a seven-day period, Reuters reported.

Read more:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/09/oil-insurance-rates-have-soared-since-ta...

Meanwhile:

Turkey Vows Response to US Sanctions, Including Steps Toward Incirlik Air Base...

The move comes after US State Department said last week that President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo “are examining all of the options in the CAATSA [Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act] legislation over Turkey’s purchase of Russian S-400 missile systems."

Ankara is set to retaliate against the sanctions that Washington intends to impose on Turkey over its purchase of Russia's S-400 air defence system, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said on Monday,

“If the United States slaps sanctions, we will respond in kind. A [relevant] step can also be taken with regard to the Incirlik airbase. This is a natural position under these circumstances, not a threat and blackmail,” Cavusoglu told Turkish news TV channel TGRT Haber.

Last year, Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Bekir Bozdag rejected media reports about US plans to withdraw its troops from the Incirlik air base in southern Turkey. This came after German troops left the base after German lawmakers were not allowed to visit the facility.

Read more:

https://sputniknews.com/world/201907221076318566-turkey-us-sanctions-inc...

The problem created by the Yanks isn't going to go away with sanctions and stuff like that. Only diplomacy will restore some sanity, especially in the West that started this whole stupid thing.

While Iran’s seizure of a British tanker near the Strait of Hormuz on Friday was a clear response to the British capture of an Iranian tanker in the Strait of Gibraltar on July 4, both the UK and U.S. governments are insisting that Iran’s operation was illegal while the British acted legally.

The facts surrounding the British detention of the Iranian ship, however, suggest that, like the Iranian detention of the British ship, it was an illegal interference with freedom of navigation through an international strait. And even more importantly, evidence indicates that the British move was part of a bigger scheme coordinated by National Security Advisor John Bolton.

British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt called the Iran seizure of the British-flagged tanker Stena Impero “unacceptable” and insisted that it is “essential that freedom of navigation is maintained and that all ships can move safely and freely in the region.”

But the British denied Iran that same freedom of navigation through the Strait of Gibraltar on July 4.

The rationale for detaining the Iranian vessel and its crew was that it was delivering oil to Syria in violation of EU sanctions. This was never questioned by Western news media. But a closer look reveals that the UK had no legal right to enforce those sanctions against that ship, and that it was a blatant violation of the clearly defined global rules that govern the passage of merchant ships through international straits. 

The evidence also reveals that Bolton was actively involved in targeting the Grace 1 from the time it began its journey in May as part of the broader Trump administration campaign of “maximum pressure” on Iran.

Contrary to the official rationale, the detention of the Iranian tanker was not consistent with the 2012 EU regulation on sanctions against the Assad government in Syria. The EU Council regulation in question specifies in Article 35 that the sanctions were to apply only within the territory of EU member states, to a national or business entity or onboard an aircraft or vessel “under the jurisdiction of a member state.”

The UK government planned to claim that the Iranian ship was under British “jurisdiction” when it was passing through the Strait of Gibraltar to justify its seizure as legally consistent with the EU regulation. A maritime news outlet has reported that on July 3, the day before the seizure of the ship, the Gibraltar government, which has no control over its internal security or foreign affairs, issued a regulation to provide what it would claim as a legal pretext for the operation. The regulation gave the “chief minister” of the British the power to detain any ship if there were “reasonable grounds” to “suspect” that it had been or even that it was even “likely” to be in breach of EU regulations.

The notice required the Gibraltar government to detain any such ship for at least 72 hours if it entered “British Gibraltar Territorial Waters.” Significantly, however, the video statement by Gibraltar’s chief minister Fabian Picardo on July 4 explaining the seizure of the Grace 1 made no such claim and avoided any mention of the precise location of the ship when it was seized. 

There is a good reason why the chief minister chose not to draw attention to the issue of the ship’s location: it is virtually impossible that the ship was in British Gibraltar territorial waters at any time before being boarded. The UK claims territorial waters of three nautical miles from its coast, whereas the Strait of Gibraltar is 7.5 nautical miles wide at its narrowest point. That would make the limit of UK territory just north of the middle of the Strait.

But international straits must have clearly defined and separated shipping lanes going in different directions. The Grace 1 was in the shipping lane heading east toward the Mediterranean, which is south of the lane for ships heading west toward the Atlantic and thus clearly closer to the coast of Morocco than to the coast of Gibraltar, as can be seen from this live view of typical ship traffic through the strait. So it is quite implausible that the Grace 1 strayed out of its shipping lane into British territorial waters at any time before it was boarded.

But even if the ship had done so, that would not have given the UK  “jurisdiction” over the Grace 1 and allowed it to legally seize the ship. Such a move clearly violates the global treaty governing the issue—the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Articles 37 through 44 of that agreement, ratified by 167 states, including the UK and the European Union, establish a “regime of transit passage” for international straits like the Strait of Gibraltar that guarantees freedom of navigation for merchant ships. The rules of that regime explicitly forbid states bordering the strait from interfering with the transit passage of a merchant ship, with very narrowly defined exceptions. 

These articles allow coastal states to adopt regulations relating to safety of navigation, pollution control, prevention of fishing, and “loading or unloading any commodity in contravention of customs, fiscal, immigration  or sanitary laws and regulations” of bordering states—but for no other reason. The British seizure and detention of the Grace 1 was clearly not related to any of these concerns and thus a violation of the treaty. 

The evidence indicates, moreover, that the UK’s actions were part of a broader scheme coordinated with the Trump administration to tighten pressure on Iran’s economy by reducing Iran’s ability to export goods. 

The statement by Gibraltar’s chief minister said the decision to seize the ship was taken after the receipt of “information” that provided “reasonable grounds” for suspicion that it was carrying oil destined for Syria’s Banyas refinery. That suggested the intelligence had come from a government that neither he nor the British wished to reveal. 

BBC defense correspondent Jonathan Beale reported: “[I]t appears the intelligence came from the United States.” Acting Spanish Foreign Minister Joseph Borrell commented on July 4 that the British seizure had followed “a demand from the United States to the UK.” On July 19, Reuters London correspondent Guy Falconbridge reported, “[S]everal diplomatic sources said the United States asked the UK to seize the vessel.”

Detailed evidence of Bolton deep involvement in the British plan to seize the Iranian tanker has surfaced in reporting on the withdrawal of Panamanian flag status for the Grace 1.

Panama was the flag state for many of the Iranian-owned vessels carrying various items exported by Iran. But when the Trump administration reinstated economic sanctions against Iran in October 2018, it included prohibitions on industry services such as insurance and reinsurance. This decision was accompanied by political pressure on Panama to withdraw Panamanian flag status from 59 Iranian vessels, many of which were owned by Iranian state-affiliated companies. Without such flag status, the Iranian-owned vessels could not get insurance for shipments by freighter. 

That move was aimed at discouraging ports, canal operators, and private firms from allowing Iranian tankers to use their facilities. The State Department’s Brian Hook, who is in charge of the sanctions, warned those entities last November that the Trump administration believed they would be responsible for the costs of an accident involving a self-insured Iranian tanker.

But the Grace 1 was special case, because it still had Panamanian flag status when it began its long journey around the Southern tip of Africa on the way to the Mediterranean. That trip began in late May, according to Automatic Identification System data cited by Riviera Maritime Media. It was no coincidence that the Panamanian Maritime Authority delisted the Grace 1 on May 29—just as the ship was beginning its journey. That decision came immediately after Panama’s National Security Council issued an alert claiming that the Iranian-owned tanker “may be participating in terrorism financing in supporting the destabilization activities of some regimes led by terrorist groups.”

The Panamanian body did not cite any evidence that the Grace 1 had ever been linked to terrorism.

The role of Panama’s National Security Council signaled Bolton’s hand, since he would have been the point of contact with that body. The result of his maneuvering was to leave the Grace 1 without the protection of flag status necessary to sail or visit a port in the middle of its journey. This in conjunction with the British seizure of the ship was yet another episode in the extraordinary American effort to deprive Iran of the most basic sovereign right to participate in the global economy.  

Now that Iran has detained a British ship in order to force the UK to release the Grace 1, the British Foreign Ministry will claim that its seizure of the Iranian ship was entirely legitimate. The actual facts, however, put that charge under serious suspicion.

Gareth Porter is an investigative reporter and regular contributor to The American Conservative. He is also the author of Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare. 

Read more:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/did-john-bolton-light-t...

London defends the shreds of its Empire against Iran

by Thierry Meyssan

For Thierry Meyssan, the rise of tension in the Gulf has nothing to do with an alleged Iranian threat. In fact, it is the second round of Mossadegh’s anti-imperialist policy, before the mollahs. Just as in 1952, London is ready to go to war to defend its undeserved economic advantages. But if the British were to win this round, a few years later they would lose in Suez to the United States.

At the end of the Second World War, the United Kingdom balked at the idea of abandoning its Empire. It created independent central banks everywhere in order to continue to plunder its ex-colonies once they became independent, and companies poised to grab half of the national wealth.

The Shah’s Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, could not accept that London should confiscate his country’s oil and steal 50% of its profits via the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC). He therefore nationalised the company. But the AIOC was the property of the British Ministry for the Marine, and London feared that this example may spread to all of the third world.

Seen from the West, Iran is a dangerous competitor.

Defending his Empire, His Majesty’s Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, convinced his US partner, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, to overthrow Mossadegh. This was Joint Operation AJAX, implemented by MI6 and the CIA and directed by Kermit Roosevelt and Herbert N. Schwarzkopf. The former was the grandson of President Theodor Roosevelt, who colonised Latin America, and the latter was the father of General Norman Schwartzkopf, who directed the Gulf War against Saddam Hussein.

Then the Anglo-US bloc set up General Fazlollah Zahedi as Prime Minister, and created a cruel political police, the SAVAK, by recycling ex-Nazi Gestapo criminals. The Iranian people paid a bloody tribute for its desire for true independence.

Operation AJAX was a success for the Anglo-US. It supplied the model for false revolutions aimed at changing recalcitrant régimes, but above all, it set back the liberation of colonised people by 35 [years].

When the same USA overthrew Shah Reza Pahlevi, who was preparing a world increases in oil prices via the OPEC, they thought they were making a smart choice by organising his succession with France – the return of Imam Rouhollah Khomeini. But the cow-boys never attained the same levels of subtlety as their English mentors. BOOM! Iran once more became the champion of the anti-imperialist struggle, as it had been before the Islamic régime.

This is the conflict which is resurfacing today. As in the time of Mossadegh, Iranian oil production collapsed under the weight of Western threats. The Royal Navy seized an Iranian oil tanker (the Rose Mary in July 1952, and Grace 1 at Gibraltar in 2019). As always, the British pretend that the Law is on their side, but in fact they have only their arrogance. In Mossadegh’s time, they accused Iran of exporting oil which had been stolen from them (because they refused nationalisation), and today, claim that Iran is violating European sanctions (although these specific sanctions themselves violate international Law).

If the conflict should favour the British, it would set back the liberation of the colonised people by many decades. If, however, it should favour the Iranians, it would open the door to a transformed world.

There is the possibility of a third way. While London and Washington were allies in 1952, they progressively became rivals, and in 1957, the United States grabbed part of the British Empire during the Suez crisis. At that time, Washington participated in the British negotiations with Gamal Abdel Nasser. It saw the rapprochement of France to the English and the Israëlis, but did not act until they launched their irreparable expedition. Today, the United States maintains its distance from the United Kingdom, and could benefit from a false move by London to « save peace » by ousting it from the Gulf. British advisors are present in Saudi Arabia, in Bahreïn, the Emirates, Oman and Qatar.

Washington is pursuing two objectives facing Iran. The first is to destroy its State structures, as it did in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, and attempted to do in Syria. This is the Rumsfeld/Cebrowski strategy . The second aims to control the export of Iranian hydrocarbons in order to regulate the world market. This is the Trump/Pompeo strategy. The dialectic concerning the nuclear programme is no more than cheap grandstanding which everybody knows to be phantasmagorical.

It could be that, tangled up in a Brexit that arrived too late and has become impossible to manage, Whitehall may insist on defending the shreds of its Empire. The collapse of Theresa May’s government makes it susceptible to give in to any crazy adventure.

Thierry Meyssan

Translation 

Pete Kimberley

Source 

Al-Watan (Syria)

Read more:

https://www.voltairenet.org/article207095.html

Read from top.

----------------------------

Meanwhile:

The British government has spent £680m of its foreign aid budget on fossil fuel projects since 2010, according to analysis that highlights the UK’s failure to align diplomatic, trade and aid policies with the goals of the Paris climate agreement.

Britain allocated more overseas development cash to oil and gas in the two years after signing the 2015 agreement than it had in the previous five, according to the study commissioned by the Catholic development agency Cafod and carried out by the Overseas Development Institute.

Read more:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/23/680m-of-uk-foreign-a...

Read from top.

In this article I will specifically address the persecution of Syrian Christians by the extremist, sectarian groups who have been promoted, financed and armed by governments in the West, in particular the UK. I would like to make the strong point that Syrians fiercely defend their secular and diverse culture, that their faith or sect is secondary to their Syrian identity and patriotism. 

I have focused on the fate of Christian minorities in Syria because of the recent hypocritical claims by members of the British government – their desire to “protect” the “most persecuted religious group in modern times” as Christians globally were described by former UK foreign secretary Jeremy Hunt, in the run-up to the leadership battle for the Conservative party, when Hunt traded campaign punches with eventual winner, Boris Johnson, whose election led to Hunt’s resignation. 

In one statement prior to his leadership bid, Hunt said, “There is nothing more medieval than to despise someone on the basis of their faith.” Former British Ambassador to Syria Peter Ford gave me his response to this statement: 

“Nothing more medieval? ‘Medieval’ is a good word to describe the ideology of these armed groups as they single out Christian villages on the edges of Idlib for merciless shelling. There must be a special place in Hell for hypocrites like Hunt and Johnson who feign concern for Christians while supporting vile jihadi groups in Syria.”

Indeed, Hunt and the British government have systematically ignored the plight of Syrian Christian communities. These communities have been specifically targeted since the dirty war against Syria began in 2011 and the Western-backed terrorist gangs have perpetrated sectarian hate crimes against all religious minorities across Syria, barely registered by Hunt prior to the recent UK government swing in favour of protecting Christians worldwide. 

In fact, Peter Ford and Reverend Andrew Ashdown, who has regularly visited Syria in order to give a voice to Syrian faith leaders, both denounce the British government for its lack of inclusion of Syrian Christian clergy opinions. Ashdown told me: 

“The British government and British Church leaders have consistently failed to take note of the views and experiences of religious leaders inside Syria since they mostly directly challenge the position of the British government.”

Ford made the same point – “Not only has the British government ignored Syrian Christians but it has tried to stifle their voice, by for example refusing visas for Syrian bishops to visit Britain just to put their case.”

Where, for example, are Hunt’s or Johnson’s condemnations of the massacre of civilians on a regular basis in the Syrian Christian towns of Al Sqeilbiyyeh and Mhardeh and villages in the surrounding countryside? These towns and villages are in the Syrian government-secured areas bordering Al Qaeda-dominated northern Hama and Idlib. 

For eight years, these Syrian towns have been shelled and threatened with ethnic-cleansing invasion by the terrorist gangs marketed as “rebels” in the West and staunchly defended by Hunt and Johnson. 

Women in these towns, wives, sisters, daughters of “martyrs” –the young men who have sacrificed their lives in the volunteer National Defence Forces to defend their communities against the sectarian hatred camped on their doorstep– have, themselves, taken up arms and trained as fighters to protect their people. The brutal gangs who would drive them from their homes and their land are, effectively, promoted and financed by the British government. As Ford says:

“It is the height of hypocrisy for the British government to affect concern for Christians when, in its obsession with overthrowing Assad, it has completely ignored the plight of Syrian Christians, who regard Assad as their sole bulwark against persecution. Worst of all, the British government continues to this day to support to the hilt jihadi groups in Syria”

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/466589-syrian-christians-terrorists-protection/

Read from top.