Report states Maersk ship will be sold by Iran

A surprisingly little media attention given to the seized ship and it's crew in the U.S.

Reports that Maersk officials are meeting with Iranian people over the issue but no participation by the U.S.? Even with U.S. citizens aboard?

This report is 5 hours old at the time of the thread.

www.presstv.ir... ommander

Iran claims it's a financial dispute between Maersk and an Iranian company and will release the ship, cargo and when paid 10 million dollars. Failing that payment, Iran will sell the ship and it's cargo.

Who'd buy it?

This is how one handles financial dis[putes? While it might spike the price of oil and make a little more on their oil exports, it does nothing to enhance their reputation as leaders that can be trusted with a nuclear weapons program...

a reply to: nwtrucker

This is how one handles financial dis[putes? While it might spike the price of oil and make a little more on their oil exports, it does nothing to enhance their reputation as leaders that can be trusted with a nuclear weapons program...

Which nuclear weapons program?

The same one that Mossad and the CIA both admitted does not exist?

'Mossad, CIA agree Iran has yet to decide to build nuclear weapon'

www.haaretz.com...

a reply to: real_one

And all of a sudden you trust the CIA and Mossad reports and quote them?

That flies in the teeth of the coalition of six ME countries that demand U.S. aircraft, missile systems and intel access before backing any Iranian deal with the U.S..

www.wsj.com...

Apparently, they don't buy into that report....

a reply to: nwtrucker

Since maritime levies (state taxes) where outstanding, and accumulating interest, Iran has a right against the vessel under admiralty law and it is appears to have escalated to a point where the vessel is most likely the subject of a Maritime lein and the easiest way for me to explain this is that when you owe the bank and can't/won't/don't make repayments, they usually don't take you to jail - they simply sell or "repossess" your house to reclaim any and all losses under the terms of the purchase contract.

No-one "buys" the vessel, it'll be most likely reflagged and bare-boat chartered to the highest bidder - probably Maersk. So Maersk just lost the asset - banks like assets. Maersk credit rating (and reputation) has just taken a hit, their insurance premiums will increase as their fleet size has just decreased by "one".

Maritime law is extremely complex and anything beyond this I would defer to lawyers for advice.

My Qualifications

a reply to: nwtrucker

And all of a sudden you trust the CIA and Mossad reports and quote them?

Not always.

But what do Mossad & the CIA have to gain by denying an Iranian Nuke plan?

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Interesting. Is that the basic reason that there's been a lack of media coverage on this?

When such a dispute exists, is there not an outside agency that decides these issues? After all, if Iran is in the right on this issue, not totally impossible, wouldn't one make use of it, especially if there might be blowback that hurts Iran's overall position worldwide?

Still, Iran should have released the crew forthwith if they claim the high road on this issue.

In my case, and likely the majority, I'm a doubter of Iranian intentions. 10 mil does not make or break Iran financially, yet this act opens the door to increased negative P.R. at the least, and could sink any consensus in their favor. Back to oil prices?

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: nwtrucker

Since maritime levies (state taxes) where outstanding, and accumulating interest, Iran has a right against the vessel under admiralty law and it is appears to have escalated to a point where the vessel is most likely the subject of a Maritime lein and the easiest way for me to explain this is that when you owe the bank and can't/won't/don't make repayments, they usually don't take you to jail - they simply sell or "repossess" your house to reclaim any and all losses under the terms of the purchase contract.

No-one "buys" the vessel, it'll be most likely reflagged and bare-boat chartered to the highest bidder - probably Maersk. So Maersk just lost the asset - banks like assets. Maersk credit rating (and reputation) has just taken a hit, their insurance premiums will increase as their fleet size has just decreased by "one".

Maritime law is extremely complex and anything beyond this I would defer to lawyers for advice.

My Qualifications

Interesting...thanks for the info on that. Would this make it more likely for "rival" shipping companies to hire "pirates" to take a ship and cause the other company to take a hit for the insurance or anything? Maybe not one as large as Maersk, but other smaller ones?

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: real_one

And all of a sudden you trust the CIA and Mossad reports and quote them?

That flies in the teeth of the coalition of six ME countries that demand U.S. aircraft, missile systems and intel access before backing any Iranian deal with the U.S..

www.wsj.com...

Apparently, they don't buy into that report....

And I should trust ME countrys why?

There is no evidence!

We already had one war based on no evidence. Dammit if I want to see another one.

Come back to me with hard evidence Iran have WMD's and we can talk about giving you NEOCons your little war.

Only reason I put faith in the mossad report is that Israel want war with Iran more than anyone so for Mossad to say there are no WMD's must really mean they cant find anything yet.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Usually shipping operators are paid at the start of the load-out of cargo for the cost of the cargo and claim a % charter day rate thereafter so even before a vessel sets sail to her destination port, the lions-share of the money the operator stands to make is in the bank.

So, and I think you know where I'm going with this, the INSURANCE companies stand to lose the most if the vessel does not make it to the destination port - the operator has the bulk of the cash and quite frankly could not give a "ship" if the vessel arrives or not.

There are certain vessel operators that have been caught in the past setting-up piracy attacks on their own vessels and "triple-dipping" by
1. Getting the original charter agreement payment.
2. Getting the insurance payout.
3. arranging, via the pirates, to scrap the vessel and on-sell the steel to Oh, I dunno - North Korea comes to mind as a past culprit.

Pirates, just like ISIS, are very heavily bankrolled, very well organized and extremely adept at what they do. They are not all like what was portrayed in the Captain Phillips movie - Somalia maybe but it's quite sophisticated elsewhere.

Google - "Indonesian military involved in piracy attacks"

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Usually shipping operators are paid at the start of the load-out of cargo for the cost of the cargo and claim a % charter day rate thereafter so even before a vessel sets sail to her destination port, the lions-share of the money the operator stands to make is in the bank.

So, and I think you know where I'm going with this, the INSURANCE companies stand to lose the most if the vessel does not make it to the destination port - the operator has the bulk of the cash and quite frankly could not give a "ship" if the vessel arrives or not.

There are certain vessel operators that have been caught in the past setting-up piracy attacks on their own vessels and "triple-dipping" by
1. Getting the original charter agreement payment.
2. Getting the insurance payout.
3. arranging, via the pirates, to scrap the vessel and on-sell the steel to Oh, I dunno - North Korea comes to mind as a past culprit.

Pirates, just like ISIS, are very heavily bankrolled, very well organized and extremely adept at what they do. They are not all like what was portrayed in the Captain Phillips movie - Somalia maybe but it's quite sophisticated elsewhere.

Google - "Indonesian military involved in piracy attacks"

Again...thanks for the great info and insight. I have a friend that works for a private security company and is typically on ships 4 or 5 months out of the year doing details keeping "pirates" away. I could imagine piracy is very lucrative for those involved...they seem to go to very extreme measures to take a ship from the stories I have been told.

a reply to: nwtrucker

First impression is ...good ...Having to endure western sanctions for gaining the control of their country back from western intrigues they have finally put on the big boy pants and laying it on the line . The price to doing business in their hood I guess ...:>)

a reply to: nwtrucker

Confiscating assets and property in lieu of payment is a common practice mate, even in the USA.

If you don't pay what you owe to the taxman, they'll take everything you have in place of payment.

Why do you think it should be different for Iran to seize assets when payment isn't forthcoming, if the US government (and pretty much every other government there is) routinely does the same thing to US citizens if they don't pay their bills?

a reply to: Sublimecraft

and maritime law overrules the law of the land.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Assuming, the reports are actual Mossad and CIA reports, then the same reason the CIA 'failed' to report Saddam's troop build-up at the Kuwaiti border prior to Gulf War I to Bush senior.

Especially Mossad. The better question is why would Mossad counter Netanyahu's position on Iran? The short, logical, answer is they wouldn't.

The actions of Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, et al, is the confirmation.....at least in my books.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Assuming, the reports are actual Mossad and CIA reports, then the same reason the CIA 'failed' to report Saddam's troop build-up at the Kuwaiti border prior to Gulf War I to Bush senior.

Especially Mossad. The better question is why would Mossad counter Netanyahu's position on Iran? The short, logical, answer is they wouldn't.

The actions of Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, et al, is the confirmation.....at least in my books.

Wow you trust the Saudis

Just wow.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

Especially Mossad. The better question is why would Mossad counter Netanyahu's position on Iran? The short, logical, answer is they wouldn't.

Maybe cause Netanyahu's is wrong?

a reply to: crazyewok

Rather simple really. If they have no desire for nukes, then agree to rid themselves of the accelerators that serve no other purpose the enrichment.

The question is answered.

You counter yourself on a regular basis. Prove it, then advocate iran's 'right' to nukes. Can't have it both ways and claim an objective viewpoint.

Between Hamas, Hezbollah, I.E.D.'s in Iraq, on and on. one can only conclude where there's smoke, there's fire.

I know you'd rather have the U.S. take on N.K. rather than any issue in the ME.. Understandable, I suppose, however, ignoring middle-East issues and potential nuclear proliferation in the region is really dumb, IMO.

Not a single ME nation backs Iranian nukes. If iran had no intention to build nukes, this would have been settled long ago. AND YOU KNIOW IT. You are one smart dude.

On this one, you are wrong.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Again its all based off of assumptions. Circumstantial evidence.

Note enough to start a war and kill people over.

I treat war as a incredibly serous matter and one NEVER to take lightly.

To start a war one needs solid evidence not just circumstantial evidence.

If and that is IF Iran wants nukes unlike Chemical weapons or Biological weapons they cant hide it forever. Hard evidence will appear. Until that time I say NO to war.

a reply to: MysterX

Yes, the age old argument of precedence. There is precedence for every act imaginable.

Obviously, the ship is worth far more than 10 mil. Why do you assume the 'taxman' is a valid claim?

Wouldn't a third party be consulted before such action are taken? Beside, the article say an Iranian company is owed that money, not State 'taxes'.

When has the U.S. navy ever been used to seize a foreign ship for debts owed to a U.S. Company? Certianly not without having gone throught the legal system. (such that it is, cough, cough... ).

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Which opens the door for the 'insurance company' to seized the 'reflagged' ship back via 'pirates' as soon as it enters international waters......

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: MysterX

Yes, the age old argument of precedence. There is precedence for every act imaginable.

Obviously, the ship is worth far more than 10 mil. Why do you assume the 'taxman' is a valid claim?

Wouldn't a third party be consulted before such action are taken? Beside, the article say an Iranian company is owed that money, not State 'taxes'.

When has the U.S. navy ever been used to seize a foreign ship for debts owed to a U.S. Company? Certianly not without having gone throught the legal system. (such that it is, cough, cough...

).

Please read your own comment to yourself and tell us : exactly what kind of a logic are u using here ?

Tnx