Video: Iranian Navy Warship Fires on Oil Tanker in the Strait of Hormuz | Hacker News Reader

Video: Iranian Navy Warship Fires on Oil Tanker in the Strait of Hormuz

news.usni.org

>> Richmond Voyager, under the Bahamas flag,

Are they using tax haven flags to dodge taxes? just to be saved by a tax paid millitary...

The US military enforces sea peace across the globe. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Task_Force_151

Pax Americana has yielded the American people great benefits. It is in this nation's interests to preserve global sea trade. When the benefits accrue so much to America, it is in America's interests to intervene on behalf of everyone - even those who won't pay.

Something people often make a mistake with is positive externalities. There are many things that have positive externalities. Others having children is what keeps the country running in your old age when you have none; keeping your country's Western border safe helps you even if your state is miles away in the East; ensuring children are all educated and fed helps even if you will have none; ensuring your population is employed will help even if you don't need to work anymore; ensuring others can take public transit along your route helps even if you must drive; treating people who can't pay in emergency rooms helps you even if you will be forced to pay.

Nations which realize this build a strong collective identity which lets them see assistance of their fellow man as assistance of self, bypassing the innate "why my money spent on him" complaint.

It hasn't only benefited the US but everyone except those who specifically reject it. It has hugely befitted China having peaceful and open global trade. Now they want to burn it out from underneath themselves thinking they'll gain some kind of advantage by replacing the American system. "We don't want YOUR peace" so to speak. Not that the USA or American system is perfect, but if it's a choice between that and the others on offer...

What the article didn't mention was that the US has pirated (ahem) "commandeered" Iranian oil tankers as well. This is an ongoing dispute between these two countries. Iran violates US sanctions, but technically they are merely US sanctions which have the legal weight of say Togo's sanctions on the high seas. (Togo doesn't enforce their domestic law on the high seas, nor can they.)

The simplest way to get Iran to stop compandeering tankers is for the US to do the same. They don't want our "peace", it is true. "Peace with Piracy" is just not compelling to the Iranians. Can you blame them?

Likewise, China benefits from trade near her borders but the US and allies want the ability to turn off the spigot when they wish to force China into concessions, as has been noted in US geopolitical articles for decades now.

Note the Australian nuclear submarines deal: They don't really want to protect their trade with China...from China, they want the ability to control trade between China and her allies. These subs would do part of the job, with the bulk of it done by the USN. Enjoy a comedy skit on that subject: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sgspkxfkS4k

> China benefits from trade near her borders but the US and allies want the ability to turn off the spigot when they wish to force China into concessions

The word for this is "blockade", generally recognized as an act of war. When exactly did the US threaten to blockade China? And why is it that those nearby trading partners seem to regard China, not the US as a threat? How could they all have it so wrong?

There is concern amongst countries in the area. There are many territorial disagreements. Both that and pressure to host bases etc in exchange for secure access to US markets.

The Biden administration is pursuing a policy of ambiguity with respect to China. A blockade is an act of war, but publically threatening it is also a quick way to lose sway in the court of world opinion. I agree that there is no public threat of a blockade by the adminstration, nor did I claim they did. Similarly, when was the last time the US officially declared war? WWII? Actions are better indicators than words. One cannot "contain" a country like China without assets in place. And they are there. I've read about 400 installations in Asia alone?

China militarily invaded another country in, if I recall, Vietnam in 1971. Most here were not born then. I'm a geezer and I was two. A lot of wars have occurred since then, but we characterize them as an aggressor nation. Their threat to us is not that they will invade their neighbour. It is that their economic force of gravity will pull the entire world into their economic orbit, leaving us as an "also ran".

Yeah, I really enjoyed A Splendid Exchange which talks about this massive good and enjoyed Disunited Nations for one hypothesis of the future.

The US military intervenes in world affairs in the interest of geopolitical stability, which benefits the taxpayers that pay it.

But even if that's not the case, do you believe that if you are a tax dodger (individual or corporate) that you no longer should be:

* Helped by the state department such as being given protection at a consulate on foreign soil if being threatened by a foreign nation?

* protected by the military if your life is in danger in international waters?

* helped by an emergency room if your health is in danger on home soil?

This feels like a position akin to screaming at a police officer trying to give you a ticket that "I'm a tax-paying citizen, you work for ME"

There’s a huge difference between helping out a citizen who has broken the law by dodging taxes and helping out a corporation that purposefully evades U.S. regulations. People rate higher than corporations. At least they should.

Note that the State Department does charge people when they are evacuated from a foreign nation.

If you live in a world where the entirety of a corporation was paperwork and robots, that’s a very astute point.

Unfortunately I live in a world where corporations are made up from the investments and works of people (and paperwork, some robots sometimes), including the people whose bodies were on that boat. Do you want to trade?

If the U.S. has the right to intervene when non U.S. flagged vessels owned by a U.S. company are stopped by a foreign government does, say, North Korea have the right to intervene when North Korean owned ships are stopped by the U.S.?

They can try. We can say whatever we want on the land about what folks at sea do, but the truth is on the sea, the bigger gun wins.

The US Navy polices the worlds oceans. Not should, nor can, nor might, nor has considered doing so, but does and has done so for decades; and Iran already knew this, as does North Korea, and this does sometimes include intervening when a hostile power attacks non-American flagged vessels.

… but the truth is on the sea, the bigger gun wins.

Yes. So why go through the rigmarole of trying to justify the actions when it comes down to we do it because we can and our leaders think it’s in our interests.

Because despite the truth in the moment, as a republic we as people still need to believe that our actions are justified to continue our policies, and you don’t have to be lied to believe it, even if you personally end up on the side that it isn’t justified. We still want the approval of foreign nations, even if we’re comfortable with a less than 100% approval rating. Our interests do include human life, even if they’re sailing under a foreign flag on a civilian ship. We would prefer civilian ships and not have to arm themselves to the teeth ready for an adventurous voyage to get across the water without being harassed by hostile actors. In other words, policing actions are a deterrent to greater hostilities.

It does seem logical that if you sail under the flag of the Bahamas perhaps you should be calling the Bahamian Navy to rescue you from these glorified pirates.

Yes, but the US doesn't patrol international waters to protect the people or ships that pass through it. They do it to protect their own economy back home. The fact that someone flying the Bahamian flag just happened to be helped was a side effect.

A better analogy: you've foresworn your American citizenship and emigrated to a different country. Now there's a problem you still expect American law enforcement to sort it out.

I believe for a ship to be US flagged it must be built in the US, use a US crew, and follow US rules. Which makes things relatively expensive.

https://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/28/us-ship-definition-by-flag-o...

Not just taxes, but regulations (treatment of workers, etc)

Expensive oil is good for several of the world's worst governments, which are mostly propped up by high prices (Russia, Iran, Venezuela).

It's in the interest of the US (and moreso, most of the developing world) to keep oil prices from spiking due to shipping insecurity.

A very astute point. Unfortunately people cry foul when their gas prices go up, so no real political pressure otherwise.

> Are they using tax haven flags to dodge taxes?

Not just to dodge taxes, but also to dodge pesky things like worker regulations.

A small price to pay for free shipping for Made not in America.

I’d be interested to hear Iran’s point of view on these seizures. I already know our take, Iran bad/crazy. Reality is usually more complicated than that.

Tit-for-tat going on for years. US seizes tankers carrying Iranian oil. Iran seizes oil tankers in strait of Hormuz as a reaction. Rinse and repeat

https://www.google.com/search?q=us+iran+seize+oil&tbs=cdr%3A...

They allege that these ships are being pursued for infractions in Iranian waters, like colliding with Iranian ships, but I'm sure that's a pretext.

> According to the British maritime security firm Ambrey, the tanker was told via radio to stop by the Iranians. When the tanker didn’t comply, the Iranians opened fire.

What would happen if a ship refused to comply with a radio order to stop issued by the USN/USCG, while traveling just off the coast of the US?

Would it be fired upon? Boarded? Would either action be legal, or illegal under international law?

> Richmond Voyager was more than 20 miles off the coast of Muscat, Oman, and was in international waters when the Iranian Navy approached it.

Not sure what you mean by “just off the coast” but 20 miles from Oman would put it ~100 miles from Iran.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but in this context, wasn't the Iranian ship’s action an act of piracy?

It's state sanctioned and perpetrated by their navy, so I think that makes it commerce raiding.

How far is “just off the coast”.

This tankers appears to have been in international waters. The Iranians had no reason to stop it, board it, etc. The exception here would be suspected terrorism, drug trafficking, or other major crime (none of which appears to be the case here).

The US generally considers anything within 12 miles to be within American territorial waters. Inside that, a request to stop would need to be observed. Outside that, the US doesn’t have a legal right to stop or board a vessel (subject to exceptions as noted above).

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-north-korean-seize-ships-...

Yes, that falls within the exceptions I mentioned - in this case, NK ships are suspected of transferring sanctioned good from ship to ship to avoid sanctions. Like manythings involving the high seas, there’s a fair bit of gray. But Iran’s propensity to stop, search, and seize vessels in international waters isn’t generally one of those gray things.

What exactly are US ships doing 10,000 miles from home?

In this case, working with our allies to enforce international sanctions.

In the case of this part of the ocean, various things, but they've recently been seizing Iranian ships.

The ship the Iranians tried to stop violated sanctions of the Iranian government. The U.S. is a bit hypocritical. We ignore U.N. resolutions when it suits us in case you think violating U.N. sanctions somehow is a higher standard than violating Iranian sanctions.

As you can see from the Iranian reaction to USN assets arriving on the scene, Iran simply doesn't get to enforce sanctions on other countries in international waters. Reasonable people will read USN interdiction of Iranian-based tankers as lawful enforcement of sanctions, and Iranian retaliatory seizures as piracy.

I always have to read your comments twice.

The first time often gives me the (implied) sense you are being deliberatively incendiary or unclear. The second read gives me a terse, narrow, balanced, unbiased and reasonable statement based on the strict (yet multiple) definitions of the words used.

It really is amazing.

I'm sorry, I don't follow. I know this is a lot of words responding to a short comment already, but I think you'd have to break this out further to make it legible to me. You're giving the comment more thought than I did writing it, for what it's worth.

Sure! and sorry, this is entirely meta and more critique than criticism, so feel free to ignore.

Your comments are, I have noticed, often terse but always very exacting. It is different to most other comments I read on this site, where the meaning is usually clearer than the language. With yours I find it is often the reverse. It seems that you mean only what you say, rather than saying only approximately what you mean, I guess (to butcher the phrase).

Anyway, this comment in particular was, I think, a good example and maybe worth drawing attention to.. as I often I find myself, (and others) 'reading in' a point of view not actually contained within your comment (perhaps implied, perhaps not). And I think maybe, the reason the comment is difficult to parse (conceptually) is it doesn't inscribe a morality or even ownership (which I believe the other commenter was responding to), even later where you make the point of view more explicit. And I can read literally the same words as implying a neutral, pro or anti stance, and the comment also still makes sense. It is unusual, and I often am left (on second read) with the sense maybe I really don't know your point of view at the end, but that also perhaps this doesn't always matter as once I discard the need for understanding any intended or implied meaning, I see what you definitely are saying is very clear.

Anyway, yes, way overthinking it, but I do enjoy reading your takes for this precise reason, though I just have to remind myself to read them carefully.

You may define “reasonable” any way you want to. The fact is that U.S. has sufficient military power to enforce its will on others while having enough soft power to, usually, wrap those actions in a cloak of U.N. legitimacy. One should not confuse this with morality or justice or righteousness of action. The U.S. has a long history of hypocritical justifications against those it deems foes. For instance we didn’t really care all that much when Israel acquired nuclear weapons but suddenly care when the Iranians want to acquire them.

We look askance when others do to us as we do to them but we shouldn’t. It’s ok to admit that we (the U.S.) are hypocrites when it comes to this stuff. We decry (justly in my opinion) the Russian invasion of Ukraine while having engaged in even more pointlessly stupid and evil invasions of other nations (like Iraq).

That is correct. The US has sufficient military power to enforce a global sanctions regime on Iran, and everybody knows it, very much including Iran. Iran, meanwhile, has no such ability. Sovereign states relate to each other in a Hobbesian state of nature, not under the due process laws of any one country.

If Iran could do anything other than prey on hapless commercial vessels, people might look at the situation differently. But they can't, and people see it for what it appears to be: illegitimate.

But they can't, and people see it for what it appears to be: illegitimate.

During the Revolutionary War British officers were aghast when American soldiers deliberately tried to shoot British officers during battle. It was considered uncivilized by the British to do this. People fight back any way that they are able to. It’s convenient for the superpower to say forms of warfare or striking back are “illegitimate” when those forms are contrary to how they want things to be fought.

It is not illegitimate for Iran to fight back the only way they can.

I think you can reasonably argue that, but (I'm guessing) that most people will disagree with you about the legitimacy of attempting to punish the USN by accosting unrelated merchant ships.

Iran fights U.S. interests in the Middle East. Its actions are not designed to punish the USN per se. The war is with the U.S., not its navy.

Doesn’t really matter. If the US Coast Guard really wants to board you, there are no warships coming to your defense.

The USCG hunts down drug runners in intentional waters all the time. They have snipers in helicopters who can take out the engines on speedboats. Once they are disabled, an armed boarding party from a ship collects the crew.

For larger ships, the US doesn’t need a messy show of force. We can politely ask a friendly nation to seize the ship and detain the crew in their waters. It’s all nice and legal.

If it’s just off the coast as in “territorial waters”, there’s the concept of innocent passage in international law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_passage) - although the US are not part of this UN convention. If the criteria for innocent passage are not met, “the coastal State may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage”.

Edit: I guess in more tricky situations e.g. the ship isn’t obviously armed or spying, it comes down to questions similar to probable cause.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com