Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

North Africa and the middle east: just the US Government re-arranging their puppets?

Spion said:
I realise that. The question is did they try to transit the canal between 79 and now. Some posters are saying they weren't allowed
Click to expand...
They weren't allowed,and Egypt (and the USA,for that matter) would have"responded". It would have been a"major diplomatic incident",at least
 
kyser_soze said:
Iranian warships weren't allowed through.

Of course the Iranian tactic to to goad Isreal into a predictably stupid reaction - it's not like it's an aggressive and paranoid regime already, and absolutely gagging for an excuse to actually drop the bomb on some arabs.

Because goading a violent paranoiac with access to a big gun is a genius idea.
Click to expand...

Or showing solidarity?
 
its a Corvette and a tanker/ freighter a task force of the mighty Iranian naval forces furthest they have been from home in donkeys years.
Israel is frothing at the mouth that their Iranian ship is loaded with goodies for Hezbollah or hamas.
As its a naval vessel it has right of passage with out being annoyed by customs and if the Iranians decide to do blockade run not much Israel can do without starting a war. Dinner jacket possibly isn't that stupid but can just cruise around the med causing the Israeli's nightmares and making everybody else nervous.
 
Streathamite said:
They weren't allowed,and Egypt (and the USA,for that matter) would have"responded". It would have been a"major diplomatic incident",at least
Click to expand...

It may well have caused an incident but Eygpt would have no grounds to stop them in International law. Would they have risked conflict over it? I doubt it.
 
Constantinople Convention of the Suez Canal says this:

ARTICLE I

The Suez Maritime Canal shall always be free and open, in time of war as in time of peace, to every vessel of commerce or of war, without distinction of flag.

Consequently, the High Contracting Parties agree not in any way to interfere with the free use of the Canal, in time of war as in time of peace.

The Canal shall never be subjected to the exercise of the right of blockade.

ARTICLE IV

The Maritime Canal remaining open in time of war as a free passage, even to ships of war of belligerents, according to the terms of Article I of the present Treaty, the High Contracting Parties agree that no right of war, no act of hostility, nor any act having for its object to obstruct the free navigating of the Canal, shall be committed in the Canal and its ports, even though the Ottoman Empire should be one of the belligerent Powers.

Vessels of war of belligerents shall not revictual or take in stores in the Canal and its ports of access, except in so far may be strictly necessary. The transit of the aforesaid vessels through the Canal shall be effected with the least possible delay, in accordance with the Regulations in force, and without any intermission than the resulting from the necessities of the service.

Their stay at Port Said and in the roadstead of Suez shall not exceed twenty-four hours, except in case if distress. In such case they shall be bound to leave as soon as possible. An interval of twenty-four hours shall always elapse between the sailing of a belligerent ship from one of the ports of access and the departure of a ship belonging to the hostile Power.
 
rover07 said:
Would they have risked conflict over it? I doubt it.
Click to expand...
Yes,I think they would. Ever since Suez, guardianship of the canal has been of massive totemic importance to Egypt.Iran doing that is too big an insult. Plus, Egypt has been firmly in Washington's and Israel's pocketsince'79.Iran doing that would be seen as a threat by/to all 3
 
Streathamite said:
Yes,I think they would. Ever since Suez, guardianship of the canal has been of massive totemic importance to Egypt.Iran doing that is too big an insult. Plus, Egypt has been firmly in Washington's and Israel's pocketsince'79.Iran doing that would be seen as a threat by/to all 3
Click to expand...

Maybe; we will never know.

Since Iran has little naval strength, what would be the point in either side going to war?

Even so, Iran didnt attempt it because there was a small but unnecessary risk of confrontation.
 
butchersapron said:
Why?
Click to expand...

Plenty of possibilities. Taking advantage of everyone being busy with lots of other issues, doing it for domestic reasons eg trying to unite their population behind some story of doing things overseas, flexing their muscles, trying to put a spin on the Egyptian uprising that somehow the Egyptian regime has changed and will suddenly allow this, testing the will of the international community, rearranging their chess-pieces in order to give them more deterrents against possible military strikes against them that they may now think are more imminent, a response to the sanctions.

I have a vague memory of reading that the Iranians had been planning this move/announcing it publicly for quite some time now (eg months) which would rule out some of these possibilities.
 
Spion said:
Do you have any evidence for this ban on Iranian warships transiting the canal? I can't find anything
Click to expand...
it wouldn't be anything so crude as a paper doc, more an acknowledged protocol and understanding - more in keeping with the way things work in the m/east.
From my time(s) in Egypt and public ervice contacts, my understanding was that this an acknowledged de facto ban since '79, i.e."you try it, and...", but has withered in recent years
 
Streathamite said:
it wouldn't be anything so crude as a paper doc, more an acknowledged protocol and understanding - more in keeping with the way things work in the m/east.
From my time(s) in Egypt and public ervice contacts, my understanding was that this an acknowledged de facto ban since '79, i.e."you try it, and...", but has withered in recent years
Click to expand...
LOL, I wasn't suggesting people come up with primary source documents. But if Iran's navy was banned from transiting the canal and it had tried sometime in the past there'd be traces of it, in news reports, with reporters commenting on the background to the events.

Anyway, according to the BBC this voyage was planned since Jan so any fortuitous timing is just that. Oh, and they'll be docked in Syria by now and nowt has happened
 
Spion said:
LOL, I wasn't suggesting people come up with primary source documents. But if Iran's navy was banned from transiting the canal and it had tried sometime in the past there'd be traces of it, in news reports, with reporters commenting on the background to the events.
Click to expand...
I think they were too cautious to try until now
 
dylans said:
Phil you are missing the point. The military regime in Egypt is of course a stooge, it is still in reciept of billions of US aid. The point is however this isn't the entire picture or the end of the process.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that Egypt and Israel are co-dependent in terms of some of their import and export needs, too. Mubarak had reasons besides keeping the US sweet for carrying on the Sadat/Begin entente: Most of them prefixed with currency symbols.
 
kyser_soze said:
I suspected that would be one of the reasons. The other, I assume, is keeping life quiet for Israel.
Click to expand...

As far as tankers are concerned, there's the "SuezMax" issue, where the largest supertankers have too deep a draught fully laden to traverse the canal
 
ViolentPanda said:
As far as tankers are concerned, there's the "SuezMax" issue, where the largest supertankers have too deep a draught fully laden to traverse the canal
Click to expand...

So presumably they sail round the Cape of Good Hope instead?

I now have this image of the Suez canal blocked like the Blackwall tunnel after some numpty trucker has ignored the 'MAX HEIGHT' signs and clashy metal pole things, and got stuck.
 
Louis MacNeice said:
On the Libya thread the opinion was posted that what we are seeing is in the region is 'just the US Government re-arranging their puppets'.

My take is that it is currently much more complicated than that; although the US will undoubtedly work hard to protect and promote it's interests in the region.

What do you think?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice
Click to expand...

I made the comment and iirc attributed it to a friend who had gone on business to Turkey. I t's only accurate in as much that it was said to him by several people who were Turkish.

For what it's worth I got the impression that the protests in these countries was not about wanting 'democracy' but about more equality including better pay and less corruption. As far as the quote goes it has some validity as the protests were genuine although I dare say backed by certain western governlments - history has precedence. But at the same time they were legitimized by thus US and UK as they put weight behind the military in Egypt. That's not to say they aren't a bad thing but have to be looked at slightly more sceptically, perhaps.
 
More hypocricy and political acrobatics by the dogmatic "anti imperialist" left on Libya.

Spot the difference

The Hugo Chavez International Foundation for Peace, Friendship and Solidarity (HCI-FPFS) strongly condemns the Egyptian Government’s crackdown, which is ruthlessly carried out by fiercely armed security men against peaceful civilian protesters in Cairo.

Much as the Hugo Chavez International Foundation is concerned, a restoration of civil liberties and yielding to the just aspirations of the Egyptian people are the only option left for the lawless regime, not violent crackdown on protesters,
Click to expand...

All good stuff .

Oh dear!

his is the second statement to the Press issued by the Hugo Chavez International Foundation for Peace, Friendship and Solidarity (HCI-FPFS), in the light of the situation in Libya. It is no more a secret to state in this Press Release that foreign powers, opposed to peace, unity and progress of Africa are in action again, leading a wicked campaign of treachery, deception and terrorism against Libyan leader, Muammar Al-Qathafi and the people of Libya. This time, the enemies of Africa are hiding behind the corrupt foreign media in their criminal attempts to attack and destroy Libya.

The competent authorities in Tripoli have undertaken full duties and responsibilities through decisive action in the face of a well planned international covert agenda, and managed to restore security and protect human life and property in Libya. The US and Western governments hate-filled attacks on Colonel Muammar Qathafi are mere "propaganda" aimed at diverting growing international concern over the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Iraq, occupied Palestine, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Click to expand...

http://grou.ps/frontfortheunificati...tem/mubarak-and-his-ndp-gangsters-must-go-now

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m75312&hd&size=1&l=e&fb=1

POWER TO THE PEOPLE (sometimes)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dom Traynor
The government in the North of Ireland is about to be restored.
Replies
8
Views
752
likesfish
likesfish
Flavour
  • Poll
Who will win the 2024 US election?
50 51 52 53 54
Replies
2K
Views
47K
bcuster
bcuster
RD2003
South Africa election
Replies
2
Views
412
RD2003
RD2003
kebabking
  • Poll
US 2028 election?
2
Replies
54
Views
1K
tim
tim
N
Can US Supreme Court be reformed next time Democrats are in power?
Replies
8
Views
297
Yossarian
Yossarian
Back
Top Bottom