Iran seizes Freight-Ship, US destroyer on standby.

[Korgoth]

Ship could have anything in it.

May stretch the imaginations of some posters but maybe, just maybe, Iran had a legitimate reason to seize the boat.

Then they wouldn't be lying about where they seized the ship. This is a deliberate provocation.

[Kalis]

And what's the point of even flagging ships at all if they never use the flag of their actual country of origin? Tax evasion or something?

It is financial, yes. US, UK, etc. have stricter policies regarding their ships and charge higher fees than the likes of Marshall Islands, Liberia, Cyprus, Malta and, the most bizarre country to have ships sailing under their flag, Mongolia.

[Deleted]

It is financial, yes. US, UK, etc. have stricter policies regarding their ships and charge higher fees than the likes of Marshall Islands, Liberia, Cyprus, Malta and, the most bizarre country to have ships sailing under their flag, Mongolia.

Why is it still allowed when it's such a blatant abuse? Why are companies always exempt from the laws? These practises need to be shut down asap.

[Gamevizier]

so here's what I think is the likely explanation:

the shipping company may owe Iran money, didn't pay because of the sanctions/refused to pay after some of the sanctions have been lifted, many shipping companies still haven't paid Iran back. it enters Iranian waters (ships have to cross into Iranian waters in the strait of Hormuz) and Iranian port authorities order the ship to be seized, ship ignores the warning and gets boarded.

but thats my speculation.

[dd614]

Obama will apologize for inconveniencing the Iranian navy.

[Xarkan]

So we don't actually know what the court order says to justify the seizing of it?

In Danish http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Udland/2015/04/28/170617.htm

The ship supposedly got in trouble when Iranian authorities reckoned the ship violated Iranian territorial borders. The ship was passing through the Hormuz strait

Or something

[Kalis]

Why is it still allowed when it's such a blatant abuse? Why are companies always exempt from the laws? These practises need to be shut down asap.

How do you stop a company from registering their assets abroad? They aren't exempt from the law, they just abide by the law of whatever flag they carry.

The real money comes from the management and cargo, so Germany, Holland, UK, US, etc. still get loads of income from the real end of the business, it's only really the crews that suffer and few people give a toss about Filipinos or Lebanese sailors.

[TheTaurenOrc]

Why is it still allowed when it's such a blatant abuse? Why are companies always exempt from the laws? These practises need to be shut down asap.

There is more to it than just flying the flag they also need 'legit' paperwork to follow it up. I imagine its a lot like buying a driver license in Eastern Europe.

Hasn't Iran been doing this for a while?

[Xarkan]

Why is it still allowed when it's such a blatant abuse? Why are companies always exempt from the laws? These practises need to be shut down asap.

Because if, say, Denmark told Maersk their ships should be under Danish Flag then to save on wages Maersk would sell their ship to some shell company in Singapore. By not saying that Maersk keeps a lot of ships under Danish Falg and Denmark actually gets more taxes out of the company. Or something along those lines. Maersk has to be competitive to have a taxable surplus anyhow

[Ulmita]

I am pretty sure I've read somewhere that the ship was sailing inside Iran's borders not sure if bs or not though.

[Raxis]

I am curious as to why it was seized. It wasn't stopping in Iran, the cargo is destined for UAE.

[ringpriest]

It's a legal matter, not a military one, there was an Iranian court order for it to be seized and they seized it. If the US uses force to try and release the vessel, which I can't imagine they would do, then it is the US who have escalated the situation to a military one and not Iran.

The Marshall Islands are not under threat, and a ship flagged to the Marshall Islands is stretching the definition of Marshall Island interests to breaking point (ships are flagged for convenience, it's actually a Danish company), so there is no reason for the US military to get involved beyond monitoring the situation as they are doing and the notion they'd start a conflict over a merchant vessel is far fetched.

This should be played out in the courts and will likely be concluded with some cash changing hands. I'd guess it's over unpaid port fees or the like, as these things usually are, nothing that Maersk hasn't had to deal with countless times before.

Storm in a tea cup.

Still, this is a particularly inopportune time for such a seizure to take place, and I'm skeptical that the Iranians weren't aware of that. I can't help wondering if this is a deliberate attempt to kill nuclear negotiations (the ship was apparently seized by the IRGCN - that is, the more radical Naval forces of the Revolutionary Guards and not the Iranian Navy). Alternatives would be that Maersk knew the Iranians wanted to impound the ship, and deliberately sailed it through right now, because they thought they'd get away with it because of all the tension surrounding negotiations (never underestimate the stupidity of a corporate executive cutting costs), but Maersk is traditionally run conservatively, so idk. Or perhaps the Iranian government (as opposed to a faction of said government) seized it for purposes of negotiating leverage, but that seems pretty foolish, even for a desperate theocratic hard-line government. (Everyone with two brain cells knew they could do this, ergo, they didn't need to do it. Otoh, the US State Dept is involved in the negotiations, and they don't have two brain cells between the lot of them, at least when it comes to their controlling authority in DC.)

[Kalis]

Still, this is a particularly inopportune time for such a seizure to take place, and I'm skeptical that the Iranians weren't aware of that. I can't help wondering if this is a deliberate attempt to kill nuclear negotiations (the ship was apparently seized by the IRGCN - that is, the more radical Naval forces of the Revolutionary Guards and not the Iranian Navy). Alternatives would be that Maersk knew the Iranians wanted to impound the ship, and deliberately sailed it through right now, because they thought they'd get away with it because of all the tension surrounding negotiations (never underestimate the stupidity of a corporate executive cutting costs), but Maersk is traditionally run conservatively, so idk. Or perhaps the Iranian government (as opposed to a faction of said government) seized it for purposes of negotiating leverage, but that seems pretty foolish, even for a desperate theocratic hard-line government. (Everyone with two brain cells knew they could do this, ergo, they didn't need to do it. Otoh, the US State Dept is involved in the negotiations, and they don't have two brain cells between the lot of them, at least when it comes to their controlling authority in DC.)

I doubt this would have been newsworthy based on the current knowledge, but it originally broke as the Iranians seizing a US Navy cargo vessel or a US merchant vessel, the former would be a huge issue and almost a declaration of war, the latter a major issue. However a Marshall Islands flagged merchant vessel impounded for a civil matter is a bit meh at best, them firing a warning shot is vaguely interesting.

I come at this from years spent in Marine Insurance, so seizure of vessels is something we dealt with weekly and they rarely ever made the news, it's such a common event.

[ringpriest]

I am pretty sure I've read somewhere that the ship was sailing inside Iran's borders not sure if bs or not though.

The Straits of Hormuz are both in Iran's territorial waters and an internationally recognized transit passage.

- - - Updated - - -

I doubt this would have been newsworthy based on the current knowledge, but it originally broke as the Iranians seizing a US Navy cargo vessel or a US merchant vessel, the former would be a huge issue and almost a declaration of war, the latter a major issue. However a Marshall Islands flagged merchant vessel impounded for a civil matter is a bit meh at best, them firing a warning shot is vaguely interesting.

I come at this from years spent in Marine Insurance, so seizure of vessels is something we dealt with weekly and they rarely ever made the news, it's such a common event.

I'd thought the US treaty with the Marshall Islands (which makes them basically a de facto protectorate) basically meant that a ship sailing under the Marshall Islands flag, was treated as a US flagged vessel for things like this? (I cheerfully admit that my knowledge on this score is about two decades out of date, and things may have changed or I may be remembering incorrectly.)

[Kalis]

I'd thought the US treaty with the Marshall Islands (which makes them basically a de facto protectorate) basically meant that a ship sailing under the Marshall Islands flag, was treated as a US flagged vessel for things like this? (I cheerfully admit that my knowledge on this score is about two decades out of date, and things may have changed or I may be remembering incorrectly.)

I've never heard of the US Navy getting involved in civil shipping issues before, I've personaly ordered the seizure of at least one Marshall Islands flagged ship and had no contact whatsoever with anyone from the US about them, nor had any nation's military get involved in other seizures.

As far as I can see the US Navy only got involved here because they answered the distress call due to their proximity.

[ringpriest]

I've never heard of the US Navy getting involved in civil shipping issues before, I've personaly ordered the seizure of at least one Marshall Islands flagged ship and had no contact whatsoever with anyone from the US about them, nor had any nation's military get involved in other seizures.

As far as I can see the US Navy only got involved here because they answered the distress call due to their proximity.

Well, the Navy would certainly allow a legitimate civil action to proceed, it's just that when the 'legitimate civil action' involves a ship they're explicitly supposed to protect, gunfire, and the IRGCN, things could easily get out of hand in a quick hurry. However this turns out, I'm glad to see that whoever was in charge of the US forces in the region has kept their cool so far. (It's my understand that most such seizures involve presenting appropriate paperwork while the vessel is in the harbor, not gunboats while its underway.)

[Kellhound]

I doubt this would have been newsworthy based on the current knowledge, but it originally broke as the Iranians seizing a US Navy cargo vessel or a US merchant vessel, the former would be a huge issue and almost a declaration of war, the latter a major issue. However a Marshall Islands flagged merchant vessel impounded for a civil matter is a bit meh at best, them firing a warning shot is vaguely interesting.

I come at this from years spent in Marine Insurance, so seizure of vessels is something we dealt with weekly and they rarely ever made the news, it's such a common event.

Three things make it noteworthy: Warning shots being fired, the location, and the unit involved in the boarding.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, the Navy would certainly allow a legitimate civil action to proceed, it's just that when the 'legitimate civil action' involves a ship they're explicitly supposed to protect, gunfire, and the IRGCN, things could easily get out of hand in a quick hurry. However this turns out, I'm glad to see that whoever was in charge of the US forces in the region has kept their cool so far. (It's my understand that most such seizures involve presenting appropriate paperwork while the vessel is in the harbor, not gunboats while its underway.)

The Iranians also seem to have harassed an actual US flagged Maersk ship a few days ago.

[Kalis]

(It's my understand that most such seizures involve presenting appropriate paperwork while the vessel is in the harbor, not gunboats while its underway.)

It depends, if the case was for a prior infringement, then you seize it upon it next entering your port usually, though it isn't unheard of to request it be detained when it enters your waters if it isn't going to your port.

Three things make it noteworthy: Warning shots being fired, the location, and the unit involved in the boarding.

It was in Iranian waters and involved an Iranian court order, so nothing noteworthy in that. The unit being noteworthy would depned on who usually carries out such orders and, if not them, then the reason they were involved this time.

The warning shots are noteworthy, though military being dicks to merchant vessels isn't unheard of, neither is unprofessional conduct.

[Kellhound]

It depends, if the case was for a prior infringement, then you seize it upon it next entering your port usually, though it isn't unheard of to request it be detained when it enters your waters if it isn't going to your port.



It was in Iranian waters and involved an Iranian court order, so nothing noteworthy in that. The unit being noteworthy would depned on who usually carries out such orders and, if not them, then the reason they were involved this time.

The warning shots are noteworthy, though military being dicks to merchant vessels isn't unheard of, neither is unprofessional conduct.

Anything involving the Revolutionary Guard in the Strait is noteworthy.

[Deleted]

Anything involving the Revolutionary Guard in the Strait is noteworthy.

I heard storys about the pasdaran from an Iranian guy not very pretty how far their power goes.

But he wasnt there in almost 2 decades so I dont know.