Text/Purple Electricity
On the evening of July 4, local time, the British Gibraltar regional government, with the assistance of the British Royal Marine Corps 42 commando, seized an Iranian supertanker "Grace-1". The operation included some 30 Marines and personnel from the local police in Gibraltar. The tanker was carrying 2 million barrels of crude oil, which the British said was destined for Syria and that the seizure was to enforce EU sanctions on Syria.
The seized Cruise Ship Grace-1
(Source: Reuters)
According to the Guardian, the operation was led by the local government of Gibraltar, supported by the Royal Marine Corps. The Grace-1 is a Panamanian supertanker owned by a Singaporean shipping company. The tanker was carrying a crew of 28, mostly from India and a few from Ukraine and Pakistan. On shipping documents, the crude oil was indicated to have been produced in "Iraq".
Landing the British troops from the helicopter on board
(Source: twitter)
Gibraltar's Chief Administrative Minister Fabian Picardo said there was "reason" to believe the tanker's destination was the Syrian Baniyas refinery, which was part of the EU sanctions imposed on Syria. This operation is an "illegal seizure".
The Chief Minister of Administration of Gibraltar, Fabian Picardo
However, the Spanish side gave a completely different answer: According to the New York Times, Spain's acting foreign minister, Josep Borrell, claimed that "Spain was aware of the operation" and said that Britain's move was "at the request of the United States". However, he did not reveal more details. Since Spain and the United Kingdom have always disputed the ownership of Gibraltar with the United Kingdom, at this moment still do not forget to give the United Kingdom a "backstabbing".
The sovereignty of Gibraltar has always been disputed between Britain and Spain
(Source: The Sun)
The US response to this is very direct: THE US president's national security adviser John Bolton tweeted on the 4th, saying that the British action is "good news", saying that the United States and its allies will continue to block the "illegal trade" between Tehran and Damascus.
The Iranian side reacted quite quickly, and the Iranian Foreign Ministry quickly and urgently summoned the British ambassador to Iran, Rob Makar, and asked him to explain the British action. Iran said that the British action was "illegal" and that the relevant EU sanctions did not have the consent of the United Nations. The British seizure was an "act of piracy".
Boarding the ship to inspect the 42nd British Royal Marine Corps Commando
(Source: UK Ministry of Defence)
The British side reiterated the EU sanctions on the Syrian Bashar regime and endorsed the actions of the local government in Gibraltar. Rob Makell also said the operation was not against Iran, but against Syria. This "has nothing to do with the country to which the cargo and the ship belong." ”
Route of the Grace-1
(Source: tankertrackers)
According to the shipping website Tankertrackers, grace-1 departed from Abadan on April 17, and because the ship was too large to pass through the Suez Canal, grace-1 could only bypass the Cape of Good Hope and enter the Mediterranean Sea through the Strait of Gibraltar. According to the waterline depth of the tanker, it is very likely that the tanker is carrying not the "crude oil" declared on the material but heavy oil. However, the waters near the Baniyas refinery are too shallow and must be transported through other small tankers to transport the oil.
On the Iranian nuclear issue, the EU and Iran have always debated endlessly
(Source: pakistantoday)
EU sanctions on Syria began in 2011 but have never seized a tanker bound for Syria before. This action comes just after Iran announced an increase in uranium production and Britain issued a warning. This has to make people suspect that the British side is actually "drunk and does not want to drink", in the name of sanctions against Syria to "knock" Iran. The main messenger behind it is most likely the United States.
(Source: cnn)
As a result of the Trump administration's unilateral withdrawal from the Iranian nuclear agreement in May last year, the Iranian government announced on the first anniversary of the US "withdrawal from the group" that it would stop fulfilling the agreement on the upper limit of enriched uranium reserves. As the 60-day deadline draws to a close, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani once again said that iran would stop enforcing restrictions on the abundance of enriched uranium on July 7 if other contracting states did not meet their obligations to provide economic support to Iran. Eu countries, on the other hand, are trying to persuade Iran to continue to comply.
However, although Iran has repeatedly said that as long as the EU countries show sincerity, Iran can return to the Iranian nuclear agreement at any time, the assistance provided by the EU is really a drop in the bucket compared with the severe sanctions imposed by the United States.
(Source: Middle East Watch)
Although the United States began to impose severe sanctions on Iran since the United States withdrew from the Iranian nuclear agreement last year, the European Union did not immediately follow the United States and restrict Iran's crude oil exports. The British action is a dangerous signal that EU countries may join forces with the United States to exert more pressure on Iran through sanctions and other measures. This action has undoubtedly exacerbated the intensification of contradictions.
(Source: Tehran Times)
Because Iran is subject to extensive international sanctions, economic income mainly depends on the export of crude oil, and Syria is an important "customer" of Iran. If this trade route is cut off, Iran's economy will undoubtedly make matters worse. But under Iran's tough attitude, how much effect can such pressure play? We'll see