Comments by "Nigel Johnson" (@nigeljohnson9820) on "Iran: ‘Grace 1 tanker was not headed to Syria in the first place'" video.

This was a British planned trap which the Iranians fell for but the EU did not. The intention was to get the EU involved in protecting shipping in the straits of hormuz. This would have been a short step away from supporting US sanctions. It appears the plot failed, for while the Iranians fell for it hook line and sinker, the EU decided not to join the protection force. What was really needed by the British side was an Iranian attack on a European oil tanker. This was almost the case with the tanker the Iranians seized, for while it had a UK flag, it was to all intents and purposes a European ship with an international crew. Maybe another plan will be hatched or maybe they will still try and rescue this one. To avoid the latter, the Iranians would be well advised to release as quickly as possible the British flagged ship they hold.
4
@abryan8117 this plot was far too complicated to have originated in the US, sounds more like a British plan. Given that the us has issued an seizure warrant against the Iranian ship that was freed by the Gibraltar court, so while he British have given up on this plan the US has not. But the US plan lacks any logic or legal validity. It must be assumed that the us strategy is to goad Iran into attacking US shipping. This is plan is crude by comparison to that of the British, which was designed to get the EU involved in sanctions on Iran. The British involvement may have been inspired by Iran continuing to hold a British woman hostage with the claim she was a spy. She was most likely completely innocent, as her imprisonment was originally supposed to be a bargaining chip for the return of arms payments to the British for tanks who's delivery was embargoed. That was another Iranian plan that completely underestimated the British government's indifference to this hostage taking. There was never any danger of the UK paying the money back and even less when threatened by hostage taking. In its defence, no government can afford to respond favourable to hostage blackmail, it would only encourage more. The Iranians are now stuck with a hostage they really do not want. There may be some cynics in the UK government who will be happy to use her death in Iranian custody to give a propaganda victory. The longer she is held, the worse it gets for the Iranians. If she is released now, the world press will be full of the details with lots of negative propaganda towards Iran. Really the Iranian machinations are no more sophisticated than those of the US, it's all about brut force and ignorance with little thought being given to future consequences.
1
@abryan8117 the EU is resisting US attempts to destroy the nuclear deal. This is partly because the EU wants to trade with Iran,mainly for oil. He problem that the EU has is that European companies that sell in the US markets fear being locked out by trump. The EU has no strong control over their companies trading practices, so if it becomes a choice between trading with Iran or the US, we know who will win and who can blame them. The UK is far too clever than risk applying sanctions on its own. It knows both the EU and the US could leave the UK to hang out to dry. I do not think the UK has strong views on sanctions either way, though it may have been influenced by Iran hostage taking. It is essentially torn between the EU and the US. For the UK it is better when the us and EU agree, rather than force the UK to pick sides. It is difficult to determine what the UK long term objective for Iran are really, because their are still those in the UK civil service who practice the Machiavellian fine arts and are still very good at doing so.
1
@abryan8117 I thought I had fully proved the political situation. If you read my previous posts, you will see that I acknowledge the is behind the reason for the UK plot. While the EU refused to join the US/UK protection fleet, the reason had more to do with not wanting to side with Trump than it was about actively siding with Iran. Middle Eastern politics is complicated, the general rule that the enemy of my enemy is my friend does not apply. Iran has Russia as a friend and both support the dictator bashar al-Assad, but among those opposed to Assad are the Isis terror group. Then there is the complicated allegiances of Turkey. It is almost impossible to work out who's side Turkey supports. I could write several paragraphs on Turkey's complicated alliances. Given all these complicated regional relationships, is there any wonder that it is difficult to work out what the British government really wants. No matter where you go in the world it is hard to find a place that has not been influenced by the British empire, it has a long history and a web of connections. While the empire no longer exists, its impact is still felt and the UK civil services has a very long memory. British policy maybe addressing present problems, but it is shaped by a very long history.
1
@abryan8117 you have understood very little of what I have been saying, the plot was British, hatched to achieve us goals It was conducted by the British simply because the us was not in a position to do so. The UK action could be justified by EU sanctions on Syria. The EU could not complain because the UK was implementing EU policy. The fact that this action was likely to trigger a Iranian retaliation against EU shipping was the twist in the plot. It was designed to foster EU support for a multinational protection fleet lead by the US, thus involving the EU in a sanction operation against Iran. It is then only a short step to the EU becoming involved in full sanctions against Iran, no doubt expedited by Iranian retaliation against the protection fleet. The Iranians have already that they see such a protection fleet as an infringement of their sovereignty. iran, for some reason considers protection of vessels traveling through the straits of hormuz as their prerogative. Maybe now you see why this had to be a British operation, rather than one run by the US.
1
@abryan8117 you really are not Machiavellian material are you.
1
@abryan8117 I doubt that is how it works. More likely someone in the UK establishment spotted an opportunity and suggested it to someone in the US adminstration. A favour for a favour, quid-pro-quo.
1
@abryan8117 you really are not very bright, the conversation was more likely : UK: how much would it be worth to the president to get the EU to back US sanctions on Iran? US: Why? UK: We have a plan that will result in the EU joining a joint US/UK protection fleet in the straits of hormuz, From there it is just a short step to get the EU to support US sanctions. US: How? UK: We can motivate the Iranians to attack EU shipping using the cover of EU sanctions on Syria, forcing the Iranians to respond. US: Oh that sounds likes plan, we will try it. UK: Can we count on you making favourable noises in the run up to brexit. US: always happy to help an ally.
1
@abryan8117 but they did not take a British tanker, they took a Norwegian tanker with an international crew, the only thing about that ship that was British was the flag.
1
@abryan8117 only the flag was British. The plan failed not as a result of Iranian acuity, who did exactly as expected, but because the EU did not fall for it, at least not totally. The EU are running their own protection fleet, apparently the Germans are keen on the plan, though I would have expected it to be the French. I do not think the EU spotted the plot, they just do not like Trump and are desperate to keep the nuclear deal alive simply because they signed it and want to show good faith. With regard to the ship the British seized, the flag and crew were not really relevant, as the purpose was to deny Iran of the oil revenue and trigger the required response. This is not over yet, for while the British know there is no further mileage in the plot, the US have not given up and appear to be pursuing a much less sophisticated version of their own. They may yet re-seize the Iranian tanker on the very flimsy grounds that its oil is being used to fund a US proscribed terror group, namely the Iranian revolutionary guard. Again the intention will be to trigger a reaction from Iran.
1
@abryan8117 Oh, just look up the owner and operator.
1
The only question is what evidence did the UK government have that the ship was heading to Syria. If they can produce such evidence then the UK was simply following EU sanctions.
1
@dr.behzadmotevallian7135 that's the plan!
1
@dr.behzadmotevallian7135 the oil is not the issue. It's about a blockade of Iranian trade by the US and getting the EU to join in. Syria is a rubble heap, thanks to the civil war. A war that has become a proxy between the US and Russian. Both sides are contemptible and the west should have stayed out. But Russian and Iran have rushed to the aid of the murderous dictator al-Assad. In seems that in middle Eastern politics it is not politics unless someone is dying, in most cases the more the merrier. My comments purely relate to an interesting international plot. The bigger picture of why the plot was necessary is just too complicated to unravel. I will be glad when the world switches from oil to lithium for portable power. Then the whole region can go back to unimportant regional tribal and religious infighting.
1
@dr.behzadmotevallian7135 this is not the most serious issue for the region. If the predictions of global warming are correct, larger areas around the equator are likely to become uninhabitable. The move away from fossil fuels are just a consequence of this change in climate. The population of anywhere with an already very hot dry climate should be very worried, as they are likely to become 21st century refugees.
1
@M W it might be hit by a cruise missile while unloading.
1
@M W I am simply suggesting an option for the US. They could certainly destroy the oil tanker if they wished. It is questionable if a single tanker of oil is worth the trouble. What it has done is shown that Iran lied to the EU when it claimed the tanker would not unload in Syria. It was the only reason the tanker was released. Politically it has done Iran some damage, since it has broken the EU sanctions on Syria, making it even more difficult for the EU to avoid supporting US sanctions on Iran. Maybe worse, is that Iran has broken it's word, meaning that it cannot be trusted by the EU.
1