美国扣押了近100万桶据称准备运往中国的伊朗石油，运油船遭拦截被迫驶向美国
US seizes nearly 1 million barrels of Iranian oil allegedly bound for China
译文简介
网友：嗯，这篇文章真的很糟糕，让人误以为美国海军拦截了一艘船。事实上，美国司法部获得联邦法院签发的扣押令，针对拥有该船的公司，然后该运营公司遵守了这一命令，将船只开回了美国。
正文翻译
US seizes nearly 1 million barrels of Iranian oil allegedly bound for China
美国扣押了近100万桶据称准备运往中国的伊朗石油，运油船遭拦截被迫驶向美国
评论翻译
很赞 ( 15 )
收藏
Well this is a really terrible article that makes it sound like the US Navy intercepted a ship. What actually happened is the US Justice Department got a Federal court to issue a seizure warrant against the corporation that owned the ship, and then the operating company complied with the order and sailed the ship back to the US.
嗯，这篇文章真的很糟糕，让人误以为美国海军拦截了一艘船。事实上，美国司法部获得联邦法院签发的扣押令，针对拥有该船的公司，然后该运营公司遵守了这一命令，将船只开回了美国。
Christ thank you that's the only genuine explanation to this. Everyone else seems to be perfectly happy with the explanation that the US navy just outright intercepted a ship in another part of the world, which makes no sense by any stretch of the imagination.
天啊，谢谢你，这是唯一真实的解释。其他人似乎都对美国海军在世界的另一个地方截停一艘船的解释感到满意，但无论如何想象，这都没有道理。
I don't get it is it illegal for Iran to sell oil to china?
我不明白，伊朗向中国出售石油是否非法？
It's the result of Iran trying to seize 2 oil tankers near Strait of Hormuz and firing shots at them as well as the taking of a US bound oil tanker. The only reason they backed off was because a US Guided Missile Destroyer intervened. Iran has seized at least five commercial vessels in the last two years and has harassed more than a dozen others. Many of the incidents have occurred in and around the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow mouth of the Persian Gulf through which 20% of all crude oil passes. In April, masked Iranian navy commandos conducted a helicopter-borne raid to seize a U.S.-bound oil tanker in the Gulf of Oman.
这是伊朗试图在霍尔木兹海峡附近扣押两艘油轮并向其开枪，并夺取一艘驶向美国的油轮的结果。他们后来放手是因为美国导弹驱逐舰介入了。在过去两年中，伊朗已经扣押了至少五艘商业船只，并骚扰了超过一打其他船只。许多事件发生在霍尔木兹海峡及其附近，这是波斯湾狭窄的出海口，全球20%的原油都经过此处。今年4月，伊朗海军特种部队执行了一次直升机突袭行动，夺取了一艘驶向美国的油轮。
We probably do need a good marketing campaign for our Naval toys, like the Ukraine conflict has been for all our other weapons.
我们可能确实需要为我们的海军玩具进行一场好的营销活动，就像乌克兰冲突对我们其他武器的推广一样。
I'd rather not pull the largest navy into any conflict. There's already enough going on in the world.
我宁愿不让最强大的海军卷入任何冲突。世界上已经发生了足够多的事情了。
My knowledge is purely amateur and historical:
To a military navy Ships are very different from Boats, and I assume "craft". They differ significantly in terms of range, deployment, armament, crew... etc. etc.
I interpreted this as Iran having 2 ships and at least 3 boats. Though it is worth noting that a USSR/RU "ship" has a much shorter range, deployment etc. than other countries, while still having (in theory) an equivalent armament.
Furthermore, Iran was not projecting force to "blue water" sailing. They were attempting to control (or at least influence/pirate) a gulf. Unlike a USA carrier task force, their "navy" would have close land-based air support from jets and/or missiles. For example a US Coast Guard action between Cuban and the Keys would be heavily influence by the Air Force base in Homestead FL.
我的知识纯粹是业余的和历史性的：
对于军事海军来说，舰船与船只以及我猜测的"艇艘"在航程、部署、武装、船员等方面存在显著差异。我理解伊朗可能拥有2艘船和至少3艘船只。值得注意的是，苏联/俄罗斯的"舰船"在航程、部署等方面比其他国家要短得多，但在理论上拥有相当的武装。
此外，伊朗并没有将力量投射到"蓝水"航行中。他们试图控制（或至少影响/劫持）一个海湾。与美国航空母舰打击群不同，他们的"海军"会得到来自喷气式飞机和/或导弹的近距离陆基空中支援。例如，美国海岸警卫队在古巴和佛罗里达群岛之间的行动将受到位于佛罗里达州霍姆斯特德的空军基地的严重影响。
People don't realize how ridiculously huge the US navy is compared to other nations.
人们没有意识到美国海军与其他国家相比是多么庞大。
Well it was half their navy anyway.
好吧，这至少是他们海军的一半了。
Yes, the US Navy destroyed Iran's once before... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis
The story around that was wild. Even recon planes were getting in on the action.
是的，美国海军曾经摧毁过伊朗......
那时的故事非常疯狂。甚至侦察机也参与了行动。
It's the result of Iran trying to seize 2 oil tankers near Strait of Hormuz and firing shots at them as well as the taking of a US bound oil tanker.
And why did Iran do that?
这是因为伊朗试图在霍尔木兹海峡附近劫持2艘油轮并向它们开火，以及劫持一艘前往美国的油轮的结果。 那么为什么伊朗会这样做呢？
I did mainly interdiction duty in the Gulf for a tour. We used to have little pirate flags until the XO saw them and made us take them off. We hunted pirates on another tour, so things balanced out in the end.
我在海湾主要执行拦截任务。我们以前贴着小海盗旗，直到副官看见后让我们摘掉。我们在另一个任务中追捕海盗，所以最终形成了平衡。
We did interdictions in the Caribbean, we arrested a dude in a sailboat with two chicks and like three kilos of coke
我们在加勒比海进行拦截行动，我们逮捕了一名在帆船上带着两个女人和大约三公斤可卡因的家伙。
Iran outright intercepted a couple US and UK tankers over the last few months. That’s why they’re intercepting back, publicly but..
There’s probably more on that ship than oil, just sayin.
伊朗最近几个月果断截停了几艘美英油轮。这就是为什么他们正在公开进行反截停行动，但是... 那艘船上可能不只有石油，我只是说说而已。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
If you read the timeline on Google this event happened (before April) before the Iran payback seizures
如果你查阅谷歌上的时间线，你会发现这个事件发生在（4月之前），早于伊朗的报复扣押。
The other way around, US started seizing Iranian oil in early 2020. Iran returned the favour, and here we are for another round of tit for tat.
事情正好相反，美国在2020年初开始扣押伊朗石油。伊朗进行了回击，所以我们现在又陷入了针锋相对的局面。
You do know why iran intercepted a couple u.s and u.k ships right? It was the Americans who first seized iranian tankers. It wasn't iran who started it lol
你知道为什么伊朗截停了几艘美英船只吗？最先扣押伊朗油轮的是美国人。伊朗并不是先开始的，哈哈。
Isn't just the same thing with more words? What's the difference?
这不是同样的事情，只是用更多的字表达吗？有什么区别？
In one scenario, a US warship interdicts a tanker and seizes it with the threat of violence.
In the the other scenario, the owners of the ship send a lawyer to a DC courtroom, agree that they committed a crime, and tell their employees to sail the ship to the US and hand it over to US law enforcement.
在一个情况下，美国军舰拦截了一艘油轮，并以暴力威胁进行扣押。 在另一个情况下，该船的所有者派遣律师前往华盛顿特区法庭，同意他们犯了罪，告诉员工将船只开往美国并将其交给美国执法部门。
US steals iranian oil:
"It's ok we gave ourselves permission do to it."
美国窃取伊朗的石油： "没关系，我们已经得到了批准"。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Oh, Ok. Except why does the US justice department have the right to sieze Iranian vessels? The US issues sanctions and the world must comply? Did the Iranians vote for that? Did the Americans buying the oil get in trouble? Everyone is buying sanctioned oil including the US. The US has a third of world GDP sanctioned. I guess it's the free market making them do that.
哦，好的。除了为什么美国司法部有权夺取伊朗的船只？美国发布制裁，全世界都必须遵守吗？伊朗人投票赞成吗？购买石油的美国人有麻烦吗？每个人都在购买被制裁的石油，包括美国。美国有世界GDP的三分之一被制裁。我想这是自由市场迫使他们这样做。
Because the US had previously seized some Iranian oil based on sanctions that the US had imposed on Iran. This all goes way back.
因为美国先前根据对伊朗的制裁扣押了一些伊朗的石油。这一切都源远流长。
So when's the USA seizes Iranian tankers it's justified, but when Iran retaliates everyone's surprised?
所以当美国扣押伊朗的油轮时是合理的，但当伊朗进行报复时，每个人都感到惊讶？
You have the timeline wrong, the US seized this shipment first than Iran seized the 2 ships back in April
你的时间轴错了，美国先扣押了这批货物，然后伊朗在四月份劫持了这两艘船。
Well Iran is sanctioned, and the sale of their oil would be breaking those sanctions, according to the article.
嗯，根据文章所说，伊朗受到制裁，他们的石油销售将违反这些制裁。
Sanctions by the UN are universally applicable. Sanctions by the US aren't. Iran is not sanctioned by the UN.
The issue is that the US sanctions companies who trade with Iran. The shipping company in question got caught and I'd imagine they handed over the oil "willingly" to avoid being sanctioned to death. Otherwise the US wouldn't have been able to seize the oil as that would've been piracy.
联合国的制裁是普遍适用的。美国的制裁则不然。伊朗并没有受到联合国的制裁。
问题在于美国对与伊朗交易的公司进行制裁。涉及的船运公司被抓住，我想他们为了避免被制裁到死，"自愿"交出了石油。否则，美国就不能够扣押这批石油，因为那将被视为海盗行为。
So according to the article, this was a scheme by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is designated as a terrorist organization by the US. They were shipping through another corporation, Empire Navigation which is what gave the US its justification for seizing it.
Worth noting as well is this is from unsealed court documents for a case which has already resolved, so this isn’t something that just happened.
根据文章所述，这是伊斯兰革命卫队的一项计划，而这个组织被美国认定为恐怖组织。他们通过另一家公司帝国航运进行运输，这就给了美国扣押的理由。
还值得注意的是，这是已经解决的一个案件的未封存法庭文件，所以这不是刚刚发生的事情。
The IRGC is not just a terrorist group though. They are a legitimate branch of the Iranian Armed Forces and report directly to the head of state of Iran (the Ayatollah). This situation is not US militaRy Vs. Terrorism, it’s US militaRy Vs. Iranian military. Important distinction
然而，伊斯兰革命卫队并不仅仅是一个恐怖组织。他们是伊朗军队的一个合法部门，直接向伊朗最高领导人（阿亚图拉）汇报。这个情况并不是美国军队对抗恐怖主义，而是美国军队对抗伊朗军队。这是一个重要的区别。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Yeah it's kind of weird for the US to unilaterally use a US law to seize another nation's property. I mean, iran is hostile, and we wouldn't blx twice if the same were done to Russia. Just weird to say it's illegal since the US just made the rules up by itself.
是的，美国单方面使用美国法律扣押另一个国家的财产确实有些奇怪。我的意思是，伊朗是敌对国家，如果对俄罗斯采取同样的行动，我们不会多想。只是觉得说这是非法的有点奇怪，因为美国是自己制定规则的。
Ok. Thing is your thinking about it wrong rather than think law think “if you try to sell any oil, we will seize property and assets including ships using our navy, financial networks and international agreements with other countries”.
It’s not a board game with set rules, countries make up rules themselves but are typically tempered by how other countries will react.
好吧。问题在于你的思考方式有误，不应该想法律，而是应该想“如果你试图出售任何石油，我们将使用我们的海军、金融网络和与其他国家的国际协议来扣押财产和资产，包括船只”。
这不是一个设置了规则的棋盘游戏，国家自己制定规则，但通常会考虑到其他国家的反应。
Whoever has the bigger gun makes the rules
谁拥有更强大的武器，谁就制定规则。
Are you willing to challenge the leader of the group?
你愿意挑战该组织的领导吗？
You have t been keeping up with the news. The Iranians have been seizing oil tankers bound for the US. This is a response to Iranian actions more than enforcing sanctions.
你没有跟上新闻。伊朗一直在扣押前往美国的油轮。这是对伊朗行动的回应，而不仅仅是对制裁的执行
Which was in response to the US seizure of Iranian oil, trying to enforce unilateral sanctions (this would normally be known as piracy or privateering).
这是对美国扣押伊朗石油的回应，试图执行单边制裁（这通常被称为海盗行为或私掠）。
Thanks for the oil I suppose?
But yeah, good for our Navy.
感谢那些石油吧？但是，确实对我们的海军有好处。
It was ordered to dock near Galveston TX. I don't think it was escalated to where the navy was involved
它被命令靠近德克萨斯州的加尔维斯顿停泊。我认为这并没有升级到需要海军介入的程度。
The navy was not really involved...
海军实际上并没有参与其中...
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
What’s the problem? China just needed some freedom.
问题是什么？中国只是需要一些自由而已。
lots of warhawkin going on in these comments
这些评论中充满了战争狂热者
People in this sub are genuine sociopaths. It's unreal. I've never seen so much fetishisation of and fantasising about war anywhere except here, it's honestly concerning.
这个论坛里的人真的很反社会。太不真实了。除了这里，我从来没有见过任何地方对战争如此痴迷和幻想，这真的让人担忧。
Fat American Redditors fapping off to « US supremacy » and fantasising about a war in which their country steamrolls another, failing to realise that if the US went to war with China or Russia it would result in millions if not billions of deaths, and they would likely die a week or so after being drafted, all while their oligarchs sit in their bunkers.
肥胖的美国Reddit用户津津乐道于“美国至上”，对战争幻想翻涌，却没有意识到如果美国与中国或俄罗斯开战，那将导致数以百万计甚至数十亿人死亡，而他们可能会在被征召后的一周左右死去，而他们的寡头们则藏身在他们的地堡中。
People are weirdly horny about war. Like dudes, you don’t want to see war US vs China. Very likely that would result in the collapse of modern life
人们对战争有着奇怪的渴望。伙计们，你们可不想看到美国对中国的战争。很有可能这会导致现代生活的崩溃。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
i don't get it either. a us vs china war would be a catastrophe for everyone
我也不明白。美国对中国的战争对每个人来说都是一场灾难。
I think I read somewhere that every few generations you get one excited about war. I guess young men during the civil war and WWI were pretty excited about the idea of going to war. I think gen z, maybe millennials, despite having a much lower military enrollment rate are in this phase. Especially young men of a certain political leaning… This is all my own anecdotal observations. I could be wrong about all of this.
我记得在某个地方读到，每隔几代人就会有一些人对战争充满激情。我猜内战和一战期间的年轻男性对参战充满了激动。我认为Z世代，也许是千禧一代，尽管军事入伍率要低得多，但他们正处于这个阶段。特别是某些政治倾向的年轻男性...这都是我自己的一些观察。我可能对这一切都错了。
i can see the appeal for the very young <17 audience, their future is gonna be shit no matter what, likely no chance of owning a home, working multiple jobs, climate change etc
a war would result in some sort of economic reset as bad as it would be for all parties
我可以理解对于年轻人（17岁以下）来说，他们的未来可能会很糟糕，无论发生什么情况，他们可能没有机会拥有房屋、需要从事多份工作，还有气候变化等问题。一场战争可能导致某种经济重置，虽然对所有参与国都会造成困境。
Let's say a Chinese court issued a seizure warrant against a Saudi corporation that owned a ship bound for the US with a bunch of oil. And then that operating company complied with the order and sailed the ship to China and they kept all the oil.
Would everyone here be fine with that?
假设中国法院发布了一份扣押令，要求扣押一艘属于沙特公司的载有大量石油的船只，该船只原本驶往美国。然后，该运营公司遵守了这个命令，将船只开往中国并保留了所有的石油。这样做，这里的每个人都会同意吗？
We.... we can do that?
Can we seize some other shit too? I need a new graphics card.
我们...我们可以那样做吗？ 我们可以扣押其他东西吗？我需要一个新的显卡。
I once asked a friend of mine who is an IR policy consultant what stops the US from doing it, given how hard they gap most countries. He said because you could literally use SWIFT to get your way (see Iran sanctions as an example of this) and benefit more from trade than you do from high seas piracy
我曾经问过一个朋友，他是国际关系政策顾问，问他美国为什么不这么做，考虑到他们在与大多数国家的差距有多大。他说，因为你实际上可以利用SWIFT来达到你的目的（以伊朗制裁为例），并从贸易中获得比从高海盗行为中获得更多的利益。
It's truly amazing how much influence the banking and insurance industries have. Between the US influence on SWIFT and the UK's influence on maritime shipping influence, there is very little international commerce that can't be sanctioned when the US and UK are aligned and fully motivated. The price cap on Russian oil comes to mind, that was a particularly interesting restriction that walked a fine line between restricting the world's oil supply and allowing Russia to utilize oil funds to fuel their war.
银行和保险业对世界影响力之大，真是令人惊讶。在美国影响SWIFT系统的同时，在英国影响海上航运，当美国和英国保持一致并全力推动时，很少有国际贸易无法受到制裁。对俄罗斯石油的价格上限就是一个例子，它是一个非常有趣的限制，站在世界石油供应限制与俄罗斯利用石油资金支持战争之间的微妙边缘上。
I personally need some siding replaced on my house. Any of that floating around Iran?
我个人需要更换房子上的一些外墙板。伊朗那边有这样的材料吗？
Yeah how is there not an app that’s like Uber, but uses fighter Jets and special forces?
是啊，怎么还没有一款像优步那样使用战斗机和特种部队的应用程序呢？
It's the result of my tax money, and I want it now!.
这是我纳税的结果，我想要现在就得到！