美國(guó)扣押了近100萬桶據(jù)稱準(zhǔn)備運(yùn)往中國(guó)的伊朗石油，運(yùn)油船遭攔截被迫駛向美國(guó)
US seizes nearly 1 million barrels of Iranian oil allegedly bound for China
譯文簡(jiǎn)介
網(wǎng)友：嗯，這篇文章真的很糟糕，讓人誤以為美國(guó)海軍攔截了一艘船。事實(shí)上，美國(guó)司法部獲得聯(lián)邦法院簽發(fā)的扣押令，針對(duì)擁有該船的公司，然后該運(yùn)營(yíng)公司遵守了這一命令，將船只開回了美國(guó)。
正文翻譯
US seizes nearly 1 million barrels of Iranian oil allegedly bound for China
美國(guó)扣押了近100萬桶據(jù)稱準(zhǔn)備運(yùn)往中國(guó)的伊朗石油，運(yùn)油船遭攔截被迫駛向美國(guó)
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
評(píng)論翻譯
很贊 ( 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，這篇文章真的很糟糕，讓人誤以為美國(guó)海軍攔截了一艘船。事實(shí)上，美國(guó)司法部獲得聯(lián)邦法院簽發(fā)的扣押令，針對(duì)擁有該船的公司，然后該運(yùn)營(yíng)公司遵守了這一命令，將船只開回了美國(guó)。
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，謝謝你，這是唯一真實(shí)的解釋。其他人似乎都對(duì)美國(guó)海軍在世界的另一個(gè)地方截停一艘船的解釋感到滿意，但無論如何想象，這都沒有道理。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
I don't get it is it illegal for Iran to sell oil to china?
我不明白，伊朗向中國(guó)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.
這是伊朗試圖在霍爾木茲海峽附近扣押兩艘油輪并向其開槍，并奪取一艘駛向美國(guó)的油輪的結(jié)果。他們后來放手是因?yàn)槊绹?guó)導(dǎo)彈驅(qū)逐艦介入了。在過去兩年中，伊朗已經(jīng)扣押了至少五艘商業(yè)船只，并騷擾了超過一打其他船只。許多事件發(fā)生在霍爾木茲海峽及其附近，這是波斯灣狹窄的出海口，全球20%的原油都經(jīng)過此處。今年4月，伊朗海軍特種部隊(duì)執(zhí)行了一次直升機(jī)突襲行動(dòng)，奪取了一艘駛向美國(guó)的油輪。
We probably do need a good marketing campaign for our Naval toys, like the Ukraine conflict has been for all our other weapons.
我們可能確實(shí)需要為我們的海軍玩具進(jìn)行一場(chǎng)好的營(yíng)銷活動(dòng)，就像烏克蘭沖突對(duì)我們其他武器的推廣一樣。
I'd rather not pull the largest navy into any conflict. There's already enough going on in the world.
我寧愿不讓最強(qiáng)大的海軍卷入任何沖突。世界上已經(jīng)發(fā)生了足夠多的事情了。
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.
我的知識(shí)純粹是業(yè)余的和歷史性的：
對(duì)于軍事海軍來說，艦船與船只以及我猜測(cè)的"艇艘"在航程、部署、武裝、船員等方面存在顯著差異。我理解伊朗可能擁有2艘船和至少3艘船只。值得注意的是，蘇聯(lián)/俄羅斯的"艦船"在航程、部署等方面比其他國(guó)家要短得多，但在理論上擁有相當(dāng)?shù)奈溲b。
此外，伊朗并沒有將力量投射到"藍(lán)水"航行中。他們?cè)噲D控制（或至少影響/劫持）一個(gè)海灣。與美國(guó)航空母艦打擊群不同，他們的"海軍"會(huì)得到來自噴氣式飛機(jī)和/或?qū)椀慕嚯x陸基空中支援。例如，美國(guó)海岸警衛(wèi)隊(duì)在古巴和佛羅里達(dá)群島之間的行動(dòng)將受到位于佛羅里達(dá)州霍姆斯特德的空軍基地的嚴(yán)重影響。
People don't realize how ridiculously huge the US navy is compared to other nations.
人們沒有意識(shí)到美國(guó)海軍與其他國(guó)家相比是多么龐大。
Well it was half their navy anyway.
好吧，這至少是他們海軍的一半了。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
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，美國(guó)海軍曾經(jīng)摧毀過伊朗......
那時(shí)的故事非常瘋狂。甚至偵察機(jī)也參與了行動(dòng)。
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?
這是因?yàn)橐晾试噲D在霍爾木茲海峽附近劫持2艘油輪并向它們開火，以及劫持一艘前往美國(guó)的油輪的結(jié)果。 那么為什么伊朗會(huì)這樣做呢？
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.
我在海灣主要執(zhí)行攔截任務(wù)。我們以前貼著小海盜旗，直到副官看見后讓我們摘掉。我們?cè)诹硪粋€(gè)任務(wù)中追捕海盜，所以最終形成了平衡。
We did interdictions in the Caribbean, we arrested a dude in a sailboat with two chicks and like three kilos of coke
我們?cè)诩永毡群＿M(jìn)行攔截行動(dòng)，我們逮捕了一名在帆船上帶著兩個(gè)女人和大約三公斤可卡因的家伙。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
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.
伊朗最近幾個(gè)月果斷截停了幾艘美英油輪。這就是為什么他們正在公開進(jìn)行反截停行動(dòng)，但是... 那艘船上可能不只有石油，我只是說說而已。
If you read the timeline on Google this event happened (before April) before the Iran payback seizures
如果你查閱谷歌上的時(shí)間線，你會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)這個(gè)事件發(fā)生在（4月之前），早于伊朗的報(bào)復(fù)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，美國(guó)在2020年初開始扣押伊朗石油。伊朗進(jìn)行了回?fù)?，所以我們現(xiàn)在又陷入了針鋒相對(duì)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
你知道為什么伊朗截停了幾艘美英船只嗎？最先扣押伊朗油輪的是美國(guó)人。伊朗并不是先開始的，哈哈。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
Isn't just the same thing with more words? What's the difference?
這不是同樣的事情，只是用更多的字表達(dá)嗎？有什么區(qū)別？
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.
在一個(gè)情況下，美國(guó)軍艦攔截了一艘油輪，并以暴力威脅進(jìn)行扣押。 在另一個(gè)情況下，該船的所有者派遣律師前往華盛頓特區(qū)法庭，同意他們犯了罪，告訴員工將船只開往美國(guó)并將其交給美國(guó)執(zhí)法部門。
US steals iranian oil:
"It's ok we gave ourselves permission do to it."
美國(guó)竊取伊朗的石油： "沒關(guān)系，我們已經(jīng)得到了批準(zhǔn)"。
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。除了為什么美國(guó)司法部有權(quán)奪取伊朗的船只？美國(guó)發(fā)布制裁，全世界都必須遵守嗎？伊朗人投票贊成嗎？購(gòu)買石油的美國(guó)人有麻煩嗎？每個(gè)人都在購(gòu)買被制裁的石油，包括美國(guó)。美國(guó)有世界GDP的三分之一被制裁。我想這是自由市場(chǎng)迫使他們這樣做。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
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?yàn)槊绹?guó)先前根據(jù)對(duì)伊朗的制裁扣押了一些伊朗的石油。這一切都源遠(yuǎn)流長(zhǎng)。
So when's the USA seizes Iranian tankers it's justified, but when Iran retaliates everyone's surprised?
所以當(dāng)美國(guó)扣押伊朗的油輪時(shí)是合理的，但當(dāng)伊朗進(jìn)行報(bào)復(fù)時(shí)，每個(gè)人都感到驚訝？
You have the timeline wrong, the US seized this shipment first than Iran seized the 2 ships back in April
你的時(shí)間軸錯(cuò)了，美國(guó)先扣押了這批貨物，然后伊朗在四月份劫持了這兩艘船。
Well Iran is sanctioned, and the sale of their oil would be breaking those sanctions, according to the article.
嗯，根據(jù)文章所說，伊朗受到制裁，他們的石油銷售將違反這些制裁。
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.
聯(lián)合國(guó)的制裁是普遍適用的。美國(guó)的制裁則不然。伊朗并沒有受到聯(lián)合國(guó)的制裁。
問題在于美國(guó)對(duì)與伊朗交易的公司進(jìn)行制裁。涉及的船運(yùn)公司被抓住，我想他們?yōu)榱吮苊獗恢撇玫剿溃?自愿"交出了石油。否則，美國(guó)就不能夠扣押這批石油，因?yàn)槟菍⒈灰暈楹１I行為。
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.
根據(jù)文章所述，這是伊斯蘭革命衛(wèi)隊(duì)的一項(xiàng)計(jì)劃，而這個(gè)組織被美國(guó)認(rèn)定為恐怖組織。他們通過另一家公司帝國(guó)航運(yùn)進(jìn)行運(yùn)輸，這就給了美國(guó)扣押的理由。
還值得注意的是，這是已經(jīng)解決的一個(gè)案件的未封存法庭文件，所以這不是剛剛發(fā)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，伊斯蘭革命衛(wèi)隊(duì)并不僅僅是一個(gè)恐怖組織。他們是伊朗軍隊(duì)的一個(gè)合法部門，直接向伊朗最高領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人（阿亞圖拉）匯報(bào)。這個(gè)情況并不是美國(guó)軍隊(duì)對(duì)抗恐怖主義，而是美國(guó)軍隊(duì)對(duì)抗伊朗軍隊(duì)。這是一個(gè)重要的區(qū)別。
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，美國(guó)單方面使用美國(guó)法律扣押另一個(gè)國(guó)家的財(cái)產(chǎn)確實(shí)有些奇怪。我的意思是，伊朗是敵對(duì)國(guó)家，如果對(duì)俄羅斯采取同樣的行動(dòng)，我們不會(huì)多想。只是覺得說這是非法的有點(diǎn)奇怪，因?yàn)槊绹?guó)是自己制定規(guī)則的。
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。問題在于你的思考方式有誤，不應(yīng)該想法律，而是應(yīng)該想“如果你試圖出售任何石油，我們將使用我們的海軍、金融網(wǎng)絡(luò)和與其他國(guó)家的國(guó)際協(xié)議來扣押財(cái)產(chǎn)和資產(chǎn)，包括船只”。
這不是一個(gè)設(shè)置了規(guī)則的棋盤游戲，國(guó)家自己制定規(guī)則，但通常會(huì)考慮到其他國(guó)家的反應(yīng)。
Whoever has the bigger gun makes the rules
誰(shuí)擁有更強(qiáng)大的武器，誰(shuí)就制定規(guī)則。
Are you willing to challenge the leader of the group?
你愿意挑戰(zhàn)該組織的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)嗎？
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.
你沒有跟上新聞。伊朗一直在扣押前往美國(guó)的油輪。這是對(duì)伊朗行動(dòng)的回應(yīng)，而不僅僅是對(duì)制裁的執(zhí)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).
這是對(duì)美國(guó)扣押伊朗石油的回應(yīng)，試圖執(zhí)行單邊制裁（這通常被稱為海盜行為或私掠）。
Thanks for the oil I suppose?
But yeah, good for our Navy.
感謝那些石油吧？但是，確實(shí)對(duì)我們的海軍有好處。
It was ordered to dock near Galveston TX. I don't think it was escalated to where the navy was involved
它被命令靠近德克薩斯州的加爾維斯頓停泊。我認(rèn)為這并沒有升級(jí)到需要海軍介入的程度。
The navy was not really involved...
海軍實(shí)際上并沒有參與其中...
What’s the problem? China just needed some freedom.
問題是什么？中國(guó)只是需要一些自由而已。
lots of warhawkin going on in these comments
這些評(píng)論中充滿了戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)狂熱者
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.
這個(gè)論壇里的人真的很反社會(huì)。太不真實(shí)了。除了這里，我從來沒有見過任何地方對(duì)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)如此癡迷和幻想，這真的讓人擔(dān)憂。
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.
肥胖的美國(guó)Reddit用戶津津樂道于“美國(guó)至上”，對(duì)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)幻想翻涌，卻沒有意識(shí)到如果美國(guó)與中國(guó)或俄羅斯開戰(zhàn)，那將導(dǎo)致數(shù)以百萬計(jì)甚至數(shù)十億人死亡，而他們可能會(huì)在被征召后的一周左右死去，而他們的寡頭們則藏身在他們的地堡中。
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
人們對(duì)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)有著奇怪的渴望?；镉?jì)們，你們可不想看到美國(guó)對(duì)中國(guó)的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)。很有可能這會(huì)導(dǎo)致現(xiàn)代生活的崩潰。
i don't get it either. a us vs china war would be a catastrophe for everyone
我也不明白。美國(guó)對(duì)中國(guó)的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)對(duì)每個(gè)人來說都是一場(chǎng)災(zāi)難。
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.
我記得在某個(gè)地方讀到，每隔幾代人就會(huì)有一些人對(duì)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)充滿激情。我猜內(nèi)戰(zhàn)和一戰(zhàn)期間的年輕男性對(duì)參戰(zhàn)充滿了激動(dòng)。我認(rèn)為Z世代，也許是千禧一代，盡管軍事入伍率要低得多，但他們正處于這個(gè)階段。特別是某些政治傾向的年輕男性...這都是我自己的一些觀察。我可能對(duì)這一切都錯(cuò)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
我可以理解對(duì)于年輕人（17歲以下）來說，他們的未來可能會(huì)很糟糕，無論發(fā)生什么情況，他們可能沒有機(jī)會(huì)擁有房屋、需要從事多份工作，還有氣候變化等問題。一場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)可能導(dǎo)致某種經(jīng)濟(jì)重置，雖然對(duì)所有參與國(guó)都會(huì)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?
假設(shè)中國(guó)法院發(fā)布了一份扣押令，要求扣押一艘屬于沙特公司的載有大量石油的船只，該船只原本駛往美國(guó)。然后，該運(yùn)營(yíng)公司遵守了這個(gè)命令，將船只開往中國(guó)并保留了所有的石油。這樣做，這里的每個(gè)人都會(huì)同意嗎？
We.... we can do that?
Can we seize some other shit too? I need a new graphics card.
我們...我們可以那樣做嗎？ 我們可以扣押其他東西嗎？我需要一個(gè)新的顯卡。
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
我曾經(jīng)問過一個(gè)朋友，他是國(guó)際關(guān)系政策顧問，問他美國(guó)為什么不這么做，考慮到他們?cè)谂c大多數(shù)國(guó)家的差距有多大。他說，因?yàn)槟銓?shí)際上可以利用SWIFT來達(dá)到你的目的（以伊朗制裁為例），并從貿(mào)易中獲得比從高海盜行為中獲得更多的利益。
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.
銀行和保險(xiǎn)業(yè)對(duì)世界影響力之大，真是令人驚訝。在美國(guó)影響SWIFT系統(tǒng)的同時(shí)，在英國(guó)影響海上航運(yùn)，當(dāng)美國(guó)和英國(guó)保持一致并全力推動(dòng)時(shí)，很少有國(guó)際貿(mào)易無法受到制裁。對(duì)俄羅斯石油的價(jià)格上限就是一個(gè)例子，它是一個(gè)非常有趣的限制，站在世界石油供應(yīng)限制與俄羅斯利用石油資金支持戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)之間的微妙邊緣上。
I personally need some siding replaced on my house. Any of that floating around Iran?
我個(gè)人需要更換房子上的一些外墻板。伊朗那邊有這樣的材料嗎？
Yeah how is there not an app that’s like Uber, but uses fighter Jets and special forces?
是啊，怎么還沒有一款像優(yōu)步那樣使用戰(zhàn)斗機(jī)和特種部隊(duì)的應(yīng)用程序呢？
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
It's the result of my tax money, and I want it now!.
這是我納稅的結(jié)果，我想要現(xiàn)在就得到！