The UK has vowed to increase is military presence in the Persian Gulf by sending a second warship to the tense region, Sky news reported on Friday.

The HMS Duncan, a Type 45 destroyer, will work alsongside the Royal Navy frigate HMS Montrose and US Gulf allies, but will not take part in Washington’s proposed global maritime coalition.

The news comes after outgoing UK prime minister Theresa May began talks with US authorities on beefing up a transatlantic presence in the Persian Gulf following alleged attacks on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman.

But the Ministry of Defence (MoD) refused to comment on decision, Sky News reported, but said it understood that the HMS Duncan would be accompanied by four mine hunting vessels stationed in the region, as well as a Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship.

Tensions Rise in the Persian Gulf

Tensions between Tehran and London have skyrocketed after the UK Royal Navy had also worked with Gibraltarian authorities last week to seize Iran’s Grace 1 supertanker, which was smuggling 2.1m barrels of crude oil to Syria in violation of EU sanctions, according to UK authorities.

Senior Iranian cleric Kazem Sedighi slammed the move as a “dangerous game” that had “consequences” and threatened that London would be “slapped in the face” for its actions. The comments were also made after the HMS Montrose had blocked vessels believed to be Iranian patrol boats attempting to block a BP-owned tanker sailing in the Strait of Hormuz.

The Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps were accused of attempting to “divert” a British Heritage tanker “from international to Iranian waters” on Thursday, the UK Ministry of Defence said.

ALSO READ  Land bridge from Iran to Syria nearly complete: official

The Royal Navy’s HMS Montrose then “got between them and issued a verbal warning to withdraw,” an unnamed MoD source said. But whilst Washington stated it had spotted five IRGC vessels, London said it had spotted three.

Whilst Iranian authorities denied approaching the tanker on Thursday, Iranian president Hassan Rouhani slammed London’s decision to escort the tanker on early Wednesday, stating that the UK’s previous actions had endangered the safety of navigation in the region, stating that the UK “should instead allow navigation to be safe.”

Jeremy Hunt told Sky News on Friday that the UK was not seeking to increase tensions with Iran, but added that UK authorities were “reacting to what is happening in a measured and careful way” and that London wanted to be clear that it was not “seeking to escalate this situation”.

 

Source: Sputnik

Advertisements
Share this article:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Notice: All comments represent the view of the commenter and not necessarily the views of AMN.

All comments that are not spam or wholly inappropriate are approved, we do not sort out opinions or points of view that are different from ours.

This is a Civilized Place for Public Discussion

Please treat this discussion with the same respect you would a public park. We, too, are a shared community resource — a place to share skills, knowledge and interests through ongoing conversation.

These are not hard and fast rules, merely guidelines to aid the human judgment of our community and keep this a clean and well-lighted place for civilized public discourse.

Improve the Discussion

Help us make this a great place for discussion by always working to improve the discussion in some way, however small. If you are not sure your post adds to the conversation, think over what you want to say and try again later.

The topics discussed here matter to us, and we want you to act as if they matter to you, too. Be respectful of the topics and the people discussing them, even if you disagree with some of what is being said.

Be Agreeable, Even When You Disagree

You may wish to respond to something by disagreeing with it. That’s fine. But remember to criticize ideas, not people. Please avoid:

  • Name-calling
  • Ad hominem attacks
  • Responding to a post’s tone instead of its actual content
  • Knee-jerk contradiction

Instead, provide reasoned counter-arguments that improve the conversation.

newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Peter Wallace
Member
Master
Upvoted
Commenter
Peter Wallace

Just part of the pre planned months ago of a quiet build up of forces hoping no one will notice . The first many of their populations will know of this is when all h**l breaks loose and then they will breathe a sigh of relief that ” lucky we had some personnel there when this happened “. 10% of the population are leaders, the other 90% are sheep and as long as they have plenty of grass they are not interested in anything else..

Member
Famed Member
Master
Commenter
Upvoted
Ilya Ilyayev

2 small frigates are hardly a build up. Iran has robust anti-shipping SSM capability in the narrow confines of the Persian Gulf and these will be sunk in minutes if the British are stupid enough to launch a war for their Zionist masters.

Peter Wallace
Member
Master
Upvoted
Commenter
Peter Wallace

Add that to the USS’s already there and it is not the number but the presence of. Do you think 400 US men at Al Tanf can stop the SAA if they attacked or the fact that the loss of one US serviceman would invoke retaliation by the rest of the US Military. How long before the “need” to add another ship or two. How long before France “has” to add a ship or two.. How long before the US sees a need to add too their fleet. How long before Israel or MEK see an opportunity to ignite the… Read more »

al-Nakba v2.0
Guest
al-Nakba v2.0

+++ “Do you think 400 US men at Al Tanf can stop the SAA if they attacked” => Well trained and top notch equipped in a case like al-Tanf? You may be surprised how effective a personnel of 400 can f*ck-up anything coming closer than 70km… And you don’t want to come closer than 120km with a strike aircraft. +++ “or the fact that the loss of one US serviceman would invoke retaliation by the rest of the US Military” => They surely won’t mobilise 2+ millions militaries, but be sure of one thing, they’ll come to get you. +++… Read more »

al-Nakba v2.0
Guest
al-Nakba v2.0

Type 45 isn’t actually a “small frigate”… It’s more about 8,000-9,000t ship… I think you have no idea about the firepower of such a destroyer… You may soon learn… And as I’ve already told you : our democracies don’t work through master/servant allegiances… And the Brits are more hawkish than the Yankees. If you think they give a fück about the Zionists, you don’t know the Perfidious Albion! Hey, they gave Jordan to the Hashemites despite the Rothschilds’ had already bought the country! Islam is the plague of the MENA+ a good part of Asia, UK is the plague of… Read more »

Member
Famed Member
Master
Commenter
Upvoted
Ilya Ilyayev

Mere PR stunts. Iran is not Iraq and can sink these old rusted British tin cans at will.

al-Nakba v2.0
Guest
al-Nakba v2.0

Ah, Type 45 is not really old… And pretty difficult to target too : copied on French/Italian Horizon class = stealth ships. Their radar cross-section is equivalent to… such type of vessel: And you have no idea about the electronic warfare means onboard… Where do you launch your missiles if there are… 1,000 or 2,000 targets on your radars??? The Aster SAMs onboard are the only ones proven to be able to intercept a Mach3 missile flying only at 2m altitude. Even the P-800 Oniks doesn’t flies as low and as fast. Works great against Scuds too : it has… Read more »

al-Nakba v2.0
Guest
al-Nakba v2.0

+++ Senior Iranian cleric Kazem Sedighi slammed the move as a “dangerous game” that had “consequences”
=> Dangerous for whom? Very likely for Kazem Sedighi…

+++ “and threatened that London would be “slapped in the face” for its actions.”
=> Go ahead! Make Britannia’s day, punk!