SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
CNN reports that a U.S. Navy patrol craft fired warning shots at an Iranian vessel:
A US Navy patrol craft fired three warning shots at an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps boat Wednesday after US officials said it had harassed that patrol craft, CNN has learned. Another US patrol craft and a Kuwaiti Navy ship were also harassed in the incident, which took place in the northern end of the Persian Gulf.
At one point, the Iranian boat came within 200 yards of one of the US Navy boats. When it failed to leave the area after the Navy had fired flares and had a radio conversation with the Iranian crew, the US officials said, the USS Squall fired three warning shots. Following standard maritime procedures, the Navy fired the three shots into the water to ensure the Iranians understood they needed to leave the immediate area.
Also at Reuters.
The incident occurred a day after four Iranian vessels made a "high speed intercept" of a U.S. warship.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Friday August 26 2016, @08:40PM
> here is a sample story of Iranians boarding a cargo ship.
Which turns out to be a seizure based on an unpaid judgement.
Iran said the ship was detained because of a legal dispute between the Danish company chartering it, Maersk, and a private Iranian firm.
Maersk says the dispute dates backs to 2005, when it delivered 10 containers to Dubai for Pars Oil Products. The containers were not collected and the cargo was disposed of after 90 days by the UAE authorities, it asserts.
The Iranian company subsequently accused Maersk of default and claimed $4m (£2.6m) as the value of the cargo. Maersk said it challenged the suit successfully and in 2007 the case was dismissed.
However, an appeals court ordered it to pay $163,000 (£107,400) in February.
Iran's Ports and Shipping Organisation said permission for the release of the ship was given on Thursday after Maersk "ensured the provision of a letter of guarantee for the enforcement of the judicial decision".
A Maersk statement said the release followed "a constructive dialogue with the Iranian authorities, including the Ports and Maritime Organization, and the provision of a letter of undertaking in relation to the underlying cargo case".
The gulf war is pretty far in the past, and Iran threatening to close the strait (a lot less often than their foes threaten to bomb them) is a lot less credible when they can again export their oil, which also has to go through.
> there is a long history of things going badly when there is no protection.
Well, apparently the Iranians are keeping a close eye on anything that floats nearby, so the shipping lanes are pretty safe from piracy.