3 ms·

Both the Clara and Swan were supposedly refusing to answer hails: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/ukmto-ambrey-report-possible-explosion-south-yemens

Both the Clara and Swan were supposedly refusing to answer hails: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/ukmto-ambrey-report-possible-explosion-south-yemens-port-mokha-2023-12-18/ https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/ukmto-ambrey-repor... Houthi spokesperson Yahya Sarea identified the vessels as the MSC Clara and Norwegian-owned Swan Atlantic, and said the attacks were carried out after their crews failed to respond to calls from the group. There's no mystery here. Nobody anywhere is wondering just what hijinks these groups are going to get up to next. They aren't rednecks getting drunk and shooting off for giggles. If they suspect a ship is headed to Israel, they attack it, with military equipment they (most likely) got from Iran.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Both the Clara and Swan were supposedly refusing to answer hails Right, which is a touch broader than “targeting Israeli ships.” (It’s also convenient retcon. Where would I go next…paperwork wasn’t promptly provided? Paperwork appeared forged? We thought they were lying?)
- zdragnar 3y ago
  They said they would attack anyone they thought was headed to an Israeli port. What's the greater leap, them assuming that silence was unacceptable and therefore likely headed to Israel, or that they're taking random, unpredictable pot shots and their actual agenda isn't related to Israel at all?
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > them assuming that silence was unacceptable and therefore likely headed to Israel, or that they're taking random, unpredictable pot shots and their actual agenda isn't related to Israel at all The point is their behaviour isn’t predictable. Which means you can’t make a deal. (To say nothing of there being nobody to negotiate with, nor enforce the terms of a deal ex post facto.) Put another way, nobody has a monopoly on violence on the Yemeni coast. Before we start discussing legalistic concepts like a treaty, someone needs to seize that monopoly.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> Both the Clara and Swan were supposedly refusing to answer hails Right, which is a touch broader than “targeting Israeli ships.” (It’s also convenient retcon. Where would I go next…paperwork wasn’t promptly provided? Paperwork appeared forged? We thought they were lying?)

zdragnar 3y ago
They said they would attack anyone they thought was headed to an Israeli port. What's the greater leap, them assuming that silence was unacceptable and therefore likely headed to Israel, or that they're taking random, unpredictable pot shots and their actual agenda isn't related to Israel at all?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > them assuming that silence was unacceptable and therefore likely headed to Israel, or that they're taking random, unpredictable pot shots and their actual agenda isn't related to Israel at all The point is their behaviour isn’t predictable. Which means you can’t make a deal. (To say nothing of there being nobody to negotiate with, nor enforce the terms of a deal ex post facto.) Put another way, nobody has a monopoly on violence on the Yemeni coast. Before we start discussing legalistic concepts like a treaty, someone needs to seize that monopoly.