Mike Pompeo: UK must look after its own ships
Source: Politico
The United States has a responsibility to do our part but the worlds got a big role in this too.
By PAUL DALLISON 7/22/19, 5:25 PM CET
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo | Natacha Pisarenko/AFP via Getty Images
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo made clear that it is up to the U.K. to ensure the safety of its own ships in the Gulf.
Pompeo was asked during an interview Monday on Fox News about the Iranian capture on Friday of the British-flagged Stena Impero oil tanker. The responsibility in the first instance falls to the United Kingdom to take care of their ships," he said.
Calling Iran a "bad regime," Pompeo said "they've now conducted what amounts to national piracy, a nation state taking over a ship thats traveling in international waters.
"The United States has a responsibility to do our part but the world's got a big role in this too, to keep these sea lanes open."
Read more: https://www.politico.eu/article/us-secretary-of-state-mike-pompeo-uk-must-look-after-its-own-ships-iran/
msongs
(67,459 posts)bucolic_frolic
(43,357 posts)just askin'
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)The UK always had our back.
Now they get Trump's middle finger.
NATO will be next.
Igel
(35,362 posts)We overlook "in the first instance."
Primary responsibility for protecting British ships is properly the British navy. For it to be otherwise would be weird, assuming Britain has a navy.
Now, if there's a Trinidadian tanker in the Arabian Gulf (I say that just because it pisses off the Persians, who insist on "Persian Gulf" as a matter of Persian jingoism), I'd expect the Trinidad navy not to have first responsibility.
magicarpet
(14,187 posts).... to Buckingham.
MyOwnPeace
(16,940 posts)just because IQ45 and company do their best to destabilize the Middle East doesn't mean that our used-to-be allies should expect us to act like we should care about them.
Doesn't anybody understand foreign policy - "they're foreign, screw them!"
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)An attack against one ally is an attack against all allies. Period.
hack89
(39,171 posts)You will find an important limitation.
SunSeeker
(51,744 posts)Though Article 5 has only been officially invoked once, NATO has taken collective defensive measures in other situations, including deploying missiles on the border of Turkey and Syria in 2012. https://www.history.com/.amp/news/nato-article-5-meaning-history-world-war-2#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s
NATO is not limited by Article 5. It is first and foremost a defensive alliance.
hack89
(39,171 posts)When you consider all the conflict various NATO countries have been involved in where article 5 was not invoked it is pretty clear your original post was incorrect.
SunSeeker
(51,744 posts)Article 5 does not act as a "limitation."
hack89
(39,171 posts)That was your post and it was incorrect. NATO could get involved but Art 5 says they are not obligated to do so.
SunSeeker
(51,744 posts)I was addressing your statement.
hack89
(39,171 posts)But my post was a correct answer to his post.
SunSeeker
(51,744 posts)And even if not an explicit violation, telling the UK basically that they're on their own is a violation of the spirit of NATO. And makes us look like we're being assholes to one of our closest allies.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Trenzalore
(2,331 posts)procon
(15,805 posts)Trump and his minions are burning the bridges behind them and undoing centuries of mutual trust, friendship and joint aid.
How much longer will it be before our allies will not trust the US to be a reliable partner?
Mr.Bill
(24,334 posts)LiberalFighter
(51,156 posts)Roy Rolling
(6,941 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 22, 2019, 10:29 PM - Edit history (2)
The U.K. seized an Iranian ship because of pressure from the U.S. Then, Iran pays back the favor to the U.K. by seizing a British tanker.
And our response? Sure, we got you into this. But now youre on your own.
TomVilmer
(1,832 posts)https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/20/britain-lured-into-deadly-trap-on-iran-by-trump-hawk-john-bolton
Marcuse
(7,528 posts)SunSeeker
(51,744 posts)Pompeo, YOU and your Dear Leader created this mess. You threw away a perfectly functioning Iran Nuclear deal, all to spite Obama. That started the tit for tat with Iran that culminated in the UK ship seizure. You own this, Pompeo.
Rene
(1,183 posts)JohnnyRingo
(18,662 posts)The only one.
We need them because our currency is the Petro Dollar, the value of which depends largely on keeping that black gold flowing out of the Middle East to the rest of the globe. I guess this president doesn't see that as a priority anymore.
If OPEC switches to the Euro to afford protection from NATO, the US will see an economic crash never before seen in history. Move over Herbert Hoover, there's a new sheriff in town.
Captain Zero
(6,836 posts)NT
Vinca
(50,318 posts)napi21
(45,806 posts)don't remember ANYONE saying "the US has to defend it's own country". I don't believe we should immediately send our troops to fight Iran, but I sure would have preferred hearing "I've been talking with England and committed to help them in whatever they decide to do to counter Iran's confiscations."
soryang
(3,299 posts)Bolton is in Asia trying to get allies to sign on to a "freedom of navigation coalition" in the Persian Gulf/ Gulf of Oman region. The US and UK are out front on provoking Iran and the fake disagreements are intended to drum up support for the anti-Iranian policies they've adopted.
jpak
(41,760 posts)Putin smiles.
Yup