Limpet Mines in the Gulf

starviking said:
As the UK is arranging a European force to patrol the Straits, and do not want to be part of the US multilateral force, the article seems to be making things up in order to make it seem "punchy"
Click to expand...

The European force seems at the moment to be dead on arrival.

marauder2048 said:
Just abolish Flags of Convenience; the European countries that actually own these ships would be more motivated to help.
Click to expand...

You can say that again!
 
What would naval war be like, if navies no longer sit in home ports but huddle around shipping chokepoints?

That is where the targets and attackers are after all. Imagine the cluster **** with multiple non-overlapping conflicts, together with a world of neutrals, in the same space and time.
 
The longer it takes to counter this threat, the longer it will go on and the effecton trade will increase. Past time where the talk will have an effect on these attacks. The resources are available just not being used in an effective manner. This could be stopped so why not get it done?
 
dan_inbox said:
Do you really advocate stopping Iran from spreading its rogue nuisance actions?
Click to expand...
While I see the need for agreement in the nuclear power situation, preventing any nation from attacking others should be something we all work towards. So, YES, stop them from carrying out offensive action and ideally castrate the religious paramilitary from their insane conduct towards anyone not doing whatever they want.
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
Seems like this one got defused. Possibly IRGCN went off on an unauthorized op and the new Iranian gov had to reel them in?

Edit: Or possibly a really badly timed commercial dispute playing out? Interesting thread from editor of Lloyd's List, here:
Click to expand...

A variation on the first possibility would be IRGC proxies who then had to be reeled in.
 
DWG said:
TomS said:
Seems like this one got defused. Possibly IRGCN went off on an unauthorized op and the new Iranian gov had to reel them in?

Edit: Or possibly a really badly timed commercial dispute playing out? Interesting thread from editor of Lloyd's List, here:
Click to expand...

A variation on the first possibility would be IRGC proxies who then had to be reeled in.
Click to expand...

That option seems unlikely to me, based on the geography. This was pretty well up the Gulf of Oman, not off Yemen or the north Persian Gulf, where Iranian proxies are located. Plus, some of the other reported incidents that morning (e.g., M/T Golden Brilliant reporting an incident) seem to be related to UAV operations in the area, possibly in support of the hijacking. That's a lot of coordination to ask of a proxy force.

Occam's razor says it was Iranian national forces.
 
Last edited:
Just to muddy the waters a bit, here's an interesting analysis of the movements of ASPHALT PRINCESS (AP) in the months before the incident.

https://www.geollect.com/news/mv-asphalt-princess/

AP goes AIS dark quite a bit; more than many other vessels in the region. I am inclined to believe their conclusion that AP is likely engaged in smuggling and/or sanctions evasion. But I'm not sold on her having been a witting participant in yesterday's hijack. I suspect a local Iranian actor caught her smuggling and wanted to send a message to the owner/operators about appropriate profit sharing, but didn't consider how it would play in the larger geopolitical climate. When the new Iranian government in Tehran figured out what was happening, the local authorities were told to stop ASAP, lest they bring down the USN's wrath, which was already likely in motion.

This theory is consistent with the behavior of the AP's crew, which did not sound happy in their radio comms with the Omani authorities and report having sabotaged their engines to prevent their abduction, an act above ad beyond the requirement if it was a staged event. It also fits with Iran's very blustery initial language, since they did not actually have a planned op underway and might credibly assume a false flag. Their later statements that they are still investigating the incident are also credible, because they need to figure out which IRGCN or IRIN district commander they need to hammer for almost getting them into an unplanned shooting war with the USN.

Geollect also shed some light on the "flurry" of vessels reporting "Not under command" via AIS around the time of the incident. It's not a new thing, nor is it a sign of distress. It's a behavior ships use when drifting waiting for a transit time or mooring opportunity. The fact that this got played up in initial reporting is a reminder of the perils of letting non-specialist reporters use specialized tools like AIS trackers without understanding what they are seeing.
 
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-56950323
In July 2020, the oil tanker Gulf Sky vanished from waters off the United Arab Emirates, along with its crew. Days later it turned up in Iran where it's now suspected to be working as a "ghost ship" - helping the regime ferry oil in breach of sanctions. For the first time, eight former crew have spoken to the BBC about the ship's disappearance, saying they were hijacked by a group of armed men. All but the captain have asked not to be named, out of fear for their safety and livelihoods.
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom