tbf this is more of a wait rather than jump to conclusions. Certainly rhetoric is disproportional to the instance. It sounds like the ship was sanctioned under Biden's administration, for shipping oil to fund Hezbollah.
The US treasury department sanctioned the Skipper in 2022, CBS reported, for alleged involvement in oil smuggling that generated revenue for the Hezbollah group in Lebanon and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force in Iran.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyp7rkkgvdo
However, doesn't mean you can seize it in international, or other nations waters, unless it's a UN sanction - at least, afaik. Of course, if given permission by the country to which the vessel is flagged (registered) then all fine and dandy. Wouldn't be surprised if political pressure is being applied to do so... however, the reports are frequently saying it uses positional spoofing to indicate it's elsewhere to where it actually is.
As for what the rest of the world should do? Nothing. Legalities are important, respecting rules of law etc. But also, not going DEFCON ONE NOW!!!!! over any and every otherwise minor transgression. Otherwise we'd be in world war 158 by now.
E.g. the UK seized an Iranian tanker passing through British Overseas Territory (Gibraltar) a few years back, as it was in violation of EU sanctions regarding oil shipments (to Syria was it?). In response, Iran boarded a UK flagged vessel outside of their territorial waters with claims it'd been involved in a collision with a fishing boat (zero evidence). It escorted it to it's own ports and held it for over 2 months as leverage. Nothing happened there... diplomacy was the order of the day.
In an interview last week, Joe Biden’s former chief Latin America adviser, Juan González, said that at around the time of last year’s election he had pushed for the US to station two navy destroyers off Venezuela’s coast “and even impose an oil blockade”.
That never happened, but González believed one possible way out of the current crisis might be for the Trump administration to push Maduro into accepting a recall referendum, perhaps in 2027, but threatening “real hardline consequences” such as a blockade if the result was not respected.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... uela-coast
This doesn't appear inconsistent with the generalised US policy towards this fleet of sanctioned tankers shipping oil to fund terror and other organisations, nor towards Venezuela and the Maduro Government. Perhaps conducting it all via social media rather than quietly in the background is though
In this instance, I don't think this is outrageous. It's been sanctioned as against the interests of the US -- but in a manner which is in keeping with many western countries. Of course, the risk is that of "if the precedent is set... what next, seize the ship of someone who called Trump fat?" - which is a fair point.
As for keeping the oil? I don't see it as an issue either. It's sanctioned as they're attempting to circumvent something. Of course, should the US be allowed to determine that? If you return the oil to Venezuela and the ship, then there's zero risk from evading sanctions, is there. So... frankly, don't have a problem with it. I completely understand "sets a dangerous precedent..." - maybe. I wouldn't have thought China/Russia/Iran etc would give a flying fig about whether the US had done this before they utilise it, if they desire to. It is, of course, depressing to think US joins them in that sort of behaviour. Whether it starts to empower smaller nations - well, that's where the diplomatic pressure starts. But I don't think the "DEFCON ONE NOW!" response is a good starting point.
Put it this way, the EU / UK seized an Iranian ship evading sanctions. Should the rest of the world responded by instantly sanctioning the UK/EU, regardless of *our* own justifications for doing so?
(Okay, it was transiting *our* waters which differs greatly from being in international waters
-- but there we go
)
There is
absolutely plenty of time to let this settle a bit and rational heads start to work stuff out, diplomatically, rather than instant DEFCON ONE RESPONSE!* Have to wait and see.
*and yes, DEFCON ONE is the sanctions, freeze Trump assets. Seizing a tanker that's been sanctioned but is not in your territorial waters is not the same as invading another country and committing genocide. Not remotely. Hence why I keep implying GOING FULL ALL IN HARD is not an appropriate, nor rational, response.
