Cookie Notice

WE LOVE THE NATIONS OF EUROPE
However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Friday, 12 July 2019

Hormuz security - three suggestions

Here are three suggestions for keeping our tankers safe from Iranian aggression when passing through the Strait of Hormuz;

1. Convoys
Assemble tankers in convoys with RN warship escorts - timing dependent on tides, numbers. Extendable to include other threatened nations who can contribute warships.

2. Marines
Helo on a squad of Royal Marines with .50cal rail-mounted weapons, shoulder-launched missiles etc to each tanker making passage through danger zone, transfer them to tanker moving in opposite direction for the return leg

3. Jeremy Corbyn
Elect Corbyn as PM so he can ask his Hamas and Revolutionary Guard chums to lay-off UK tankers in return for UK breaking sanctions against Iran


15 comments:

DeeDee99 said...

I wonder how long it will be before the Remainers blame Boris for this situation?

Anonymous said...

I'm interested you think we have sufficient seaworthy warships plural even to consider item 1. That's even before we contemplate how to protect a vessel as big as a VLCC within spitting distance of the shore. Against pirates? Maybe. Against Iran? ...

Oh sorry, whimsy, I see.

right-writes said...

Shurely shome mishtaik Raedwald?

If JC became leader, we would have no requirement for oil.

In Venezuela they are giving it away and look how well they are doi....

Dave_G said...


Even the idea that Iran could simply motor up to a British tanker - escorted by a British warship - to board and sieze it is ludicrous to believe.

I've sailed (merchant navy) the gulf and can testify that they frequently approach tankers for 'security reasons' and may/may not board in the same way as UK Border Patrols do (or 'should') when you sail in UK waters.

No big deal - unless you WANT to make a big deal of it......

Mark said...

We are not at war with Iran and really don't want be the one who kicks anything off and unless the Iranians actually start shooting.

I saw somewhere though that most of the oil that passes out of gulf goes to China and the far east so I would not like to think we (I.e. the US really) would be risking life and limb to help out China.

Cheerful Edward said...

I agree, Mark.

On the face of it, Trump's actions, perhaps in resisting pressure from his country's military-financial complex are commendable.

History might yet be kind to him, but he has some way to go.

Mark said...

@Cheerful Edward

The US and the UK do have history with Iran but the real dynamic is Iran vs the Saudis, these being the bases of the two strands of islam.

There are those who believe that something like the 30 years war between the two strands is a distinct possibility.

In such a conflict, I don't see that Iran would be the badly.

Ravenscar. said...

That's no sketch, for compo: it's his manifesto.

Span Ows said...

Dave_G, Mark, Cheerful Ed,

agreed. Those looking for a spark or trying to amke a spark need tying down. You just know John McCain would be one of the hwaks if he were alive and the Left, somehow, would love it because it would be 'anti-Trump'.

The 10 year war between Iraq and Iran was really completed so yes, a Sunni Shia rematch is a real possibility.

Jack the dog said...

If Iran-KSA did kick off it would be hard not to be dragged in on the side of KSA.

Nightnare scenario.

My own sympathies strongly with the Persians excluding the vile mullahs.

Raedwald said...

Agree that in any contest between the head-choppers and crane-hangers it would be hard not to wish for prolonged and enervating lethality on both sides, but the impression I get is though the KSA may be skilled at murdering its own women and children in mediaeval barbarity, it has little will to fight a symmetrical war. They want to use the US and the UK to do their fighting for them, in exchange for making our wealthiest 1% even richer.

Trump has been wise so far in refusing to let the US be used in this way - both Hillary and Obama would have been presiding over mass funerals of US service personnel crated back in bulk in C130s by now.

If we have to choose between them, at least the Persians haven't spent billions trying to undermine the west (with the complicity of that 1%) with a fifth column designed to subvert our societies.

Anonymous said...


"If we have to choose between them, at least the Persians haven't spent billions trying to undermine the west (with the complicity of that 1%) with a fifth column designed to subvert our societies."


Persia has been and could once more be, an enlightenment in the chaos of the region. If only they could release themselves from the curse of the necro autocracy which only seeks enslavement and misery, the death cult's 'other branch'.

RAC said...

IMHO the Iranians are feeling the pinch with sanctions. getting tetchy whilst being careful not to push it too far. Keep the sanctions pressure on them, and see how it goes would seem best.
There may just possibly be some institutions that are not under full control or maybe allowed to act independently. Another Gulf of Tonkin Incident would not be good.

Raedwald said...

Pete - I have added your blog to the feed on the right

Smoking Scot said...

I believe it's just a case of tit for tat.

Seems America requested we hijack one of their tankers and Iran attempted to respond in kind.

Re KSA, if Kuwait was anything to go by, then they're reasonably comfortable for anyone to use their territory, even allowing Western troops to import reasonable quantities of booze for use within their compounds.

Yemen is proving to be a running sore and they're offering good money, by local standards, for South Yemeni's as well as Sudanese men to train as mercenaries to fight on their behalf.

It's brutally expensive for the State to have a Saudi national killed and they abhor body bags with one of their own in it.

However, as they're finding in Yemen, determined locals have the upper hand in mountainous terrain; their vehicles are at a disadvantage, the locals know the lie of the land - and the best places for an ambush, where short distance hand held weapons do a fine job.

And when the going gets tough, their mercenaries scarper.