The Stena may be a bargaining chip, but room for manoeuvre is shrinking
At 4.19pm on Friday, the Britishflagged Stena Impero switched off its transponder. This is known as “going dark” and it is not normally done by commercial oil tankers in the Gulf.
The first clue as to what happened was its abrupt change of course, which was picked up by tracking services. Its destination was a port in Saudi Arabia, but it had taken a sharp turn and was heading into Iranian waters.
Minutes earlier it had been boarded by Iranian Revolutionary Guards, who had hijacked the vessel and turned off its communication systems.
Approximately 40 minutes later, the British-owned, Liberian-flagged ship Mesdar also went dark. The trackers picked it up following the same route as the Stena Impero. The crew was questioned for an hour before the vessel was released, unlike the Stena which was escorted on to the coast of Bandar Abbas in southern Iran.
British authorities were alerted and quickly called a Cobra meeting. The capture of their ships was something they had been dreading, though it had not come entirely as a surprise.
Tensions have been heating up in the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most important oil chokepoint. At the start of the month, Gibraltar authorities – aided by a detachment of Royal Marines – detained a tanker suspected of carrying Iranian oil destined for Syria in breach of EU sanctions.
“If Britain does not release the
Iranian oil tanker, it is the authorities’ duty to seize a British oil tanker,” an Iranian official wrote on Twitter.
Fearing they would make good on their threat, the Navy sent Type-23 frigate HMS Montrose to shadow its tankers through the Strait and dispatched HMS Duncan for support. The Montrose sped from Omani waters, but was an hour too late.
Jeremy Hunt, the Foreign Secretary, had tried to defuse the situation last weekend by suggesting the UK was willing to release the supertanker, but a court in Gibraltar on Friday ruled to hold it for another 30 days. A decision would have further angered Tehran, which denied the oil was bound for Syria and accused the UK of acting in bad faith.
The legality of Britain’s impounding of the Grace 1 has been questioned, however lawyers say that as it was travelling through British overseas territory it was subject to EU laws.
Revolutionary Guards yesterday tried to justify their seizure of the Stena with alternating claims, including that it had “violated maritime law”; was sailing on the wrong side of the water; and had in fact collided with an Iranian fishing boat, whose distress call it ignored.
No such call was picked up by any other ship in the area.
Abbas Ali Kadkhodaei, spokesman of Iran’s Guardian Council, which rarely comments on state matters, said they did not need an excuse to take the Stena and spelt out that it had been a tit-for-tat response. “The rule of reciprocal action is well-known in international law and Iran’s moves to confront the illegitimate economic war and seizure of oil tankers is an instance of this rule and is based on international rights,” he said.
There is now a stand-off in the Gulf, with both countries unwilling to hand over the other’s ship.
“Iran has responded in a way that presents the UK with a problem,” Michael Stephens, research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute think-tank, told The Sunday Telegraph. “The ball is now in our court. The UK could choose to detain more Iranian ships, or look to gather a group of states, such as France, Germany and the US, to see how, and in what ways, more pressure can c be placed on Iran,” he said. Howev However, he believed no major decis decision would be agreed until Theresa Ther May’s handover to the new prime p minister this week.
The ne next formal step will be an emerg emergency meeting of the United Nations Na Security Council (UNSC), in the t hope of passing a resolution ordering Iran to release rele the Stena and stop its it aggressive behaviour. b Russia, an ally a of Iran and a veto-wielding member, is likely to block it, however, if the condemnation is too strongly worded. The Foreign Office has stressed it is keeping separate the issues of Iranian threats in the Gulf, EU sanctions on Syria, and the nuclear deal. But they have inevitably become intertwined.
The latest aggressions can be tracked back to last year, when Donald Trump pulled out of the 2015 nuclear accord and reimposed sanctions.
The Islamic Republic has legitimate frustrations over the US withdrawal to the deal – which it had been adhering to – that was supposed to swap limiting its nuclear programme for an end to sanctions crippling its economy.
At the same time, however, Mr Trump has made it clear he wants to avoid war with Iran, as has the UK.
On Thursday Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, offered an olive branch to Mr Trump – a deal that would see Tehran accept enhanced inspections of its nuclear programme in return for the permanent lifting of sanctions. And Mr Trump has sent Senator Rand Paul – rather than John Bolton, his hawkish anti-Iran national security adviser – for meetings with Mr Zarif.
However, hardliners want out of the deal, saying the US’s pullout only proved what they always knew – that it cannot be trusted.
“I suspect Stena is a bargaining chip,” Charles Hollis, a former British diplomat in Iran, told The Telegraph. “It came only days after Zarif showed some willingness to open negotiations, which may have led some hardliners to want to disrupt things a little. I don’t think any side is looking for a conflict. The fact that people on both sides were seeking a de-escalation means there may be a deal to be found.”
He warned however, that Friday’s incident showed the margins for manoeuvre are “shrinking” and “the risks of unintended consequences growing”.
‘I suspect the Stena is a bargaining chip. It came only days after Zarif showed willingness to negotiate’