https://apnews.com/b37d4f169c31449fb57e619195e9d758

... The Iran-flagged Adrian Darya 1, previously named Grace 1, set course for Kalamata, Greece, with an estimated arrival on Aug. 25, according to ship tracking service MarineTraffic... Gibraltar said it had been assured by Iran that the tanker wouldn’t unload its cargo in Syria. Iranian government officials have yet to publicly acknowledge the ship’s next destination, or where it will discharge its cargo of 2.1 million barrels of crude oil. Iran has denied it was ever headed for Syria...

... Analysts had said the Iranian ship’s release by Gibraltar might mean that the Stena Impero could go free. But Iranian officials denied there was any link between the two ships. “There is no specific relation between these two ships,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi said of the Stena Impero and the Adrian Darya 1. “We are glad that our stance about the unlawful and illegal seizure of our tanker has been proven.” ... “Regarding the release of the law-breaking British tanker (Stena Impero), we have to wait for the court’s ruling,” he added. “This tanker has committed two to three nautical violations that are being investigated. We hope that these investigations will finish as soon as possible and a verdict will be issued and if the verdict orders its release, it can continue to sail its path.”

In a last-ditch effort to stop the release, the U.S. unsealed a warrant Friday to seize the Adrian Darya 1 and its cargo, citing violations of U.S. sanctions as well as money laundering and terrorism statutes...

... The Iranian spokesman warned Monday against any order by the U.S. Justice Department to have the renamed ship seized again. “If such an action is taken or even if it is stated verbally and not done, it is considered a threat against the maritime security in international waters,” said Mousavi. “The Islamic Republic of Iran has given necessary warnings to the U.S. officials through official channels, especially the Swiss Embassy in Tehran, not to commit such a mistake which (could) bring them severe consequences.”...

https://apnews.com/b37d4f169c31449fb57e619195e9d758

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-mideast-iran-tanker/iran-tanker-heads-to-greece-after-release-iran-warns-u-s-against-seizure-attempt-idUKKCN1V90DS

... U.S. President Donald Trump pulled out of a 2015 nuclear deal with Iran in May last year, while the European Union is still part of the accord, which allows Tehran to sell its oil. Washington wants to reduce Iran’s oil exports to zero and re-imposed U.S. sanctions which place heavy penalties on any breaches even for non-U.S. citizens and companies, including asset freezes and being cut off from the U.S. financial system.

While EU regulations still allow for companies and citizens in the bloc to engage in trade with Iran, falling foul of U.S. sanctions has meant most banks are unwilling to process even authorised transactions such as for food and medicine, finance sources say. This is likely to be the first major foreign policy challenge for Greece’s new Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis since he took office in July if the vessel enters Greek territorial waters...

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-mideast-iran-tanker/iran-tanker-heads-to-greece-after-release-iran-warns-u-s-against-seizure-attempt-idUKKCN1V90DS

https://www.afp.com/en/news/15/iran-warns-us-against-seizing-tanker-doc-1jm3sa6



... The Iranian spokesman said the Gibraltar court order for the release of the tanker was a blow to US "unilateralism". "The Americans have not been very successful with their unilateral sanctions that have no legal basis. They should come to their senses that bullying and unilateralism cannot get anywhere in the world today." Mousavi urged other countries not to accept sanctions the United States has imposed on Iran "because they're not legitimate and have no legal basis".

Iran's judiciary chief Ebrahim Raisi called for legal action to be taken against Britain over the ship's detention. "Now following the release of the ship, the Islamic Republic of Iran should seek damages," he told state television.

But despite the tanker's release, Iran still faced a dilemma over its ultimate destination and that of its oil, said Commerzbank analyst Carsten Fritsch. "The tanker was renamed... but the problem with US sanctions remains," he told AFP. "I don't see any buyer in the Mediterranean apart from the sanctioned regime in Syria. Returning to Iran will be difficult since it would need to make the whole trip around Africa."...

https://www.afp.com/en/news/15/iran-warns-us-against-seizing-tanker-doc-1jm3sa6

... “We can do something very fast, but they don’t quite know how to begin,” Trump told reporters before boarding Air Force One in New Jersey.

Iran has denied the tanker was ever headed to Syria.

Tehran said it was ready to dispatch its naval fleet to escort the tanker if required.

“The era of hit and run is over ... if top authorities ask the navy, we are ready to escort out tanker Adrian,” Iran’s navy commander, Rear Admiral Hossein Khanzadi, was quoted as saying by Mehr news agency...

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-mideast-iran-tanker-gibraltar/iranian-tanker-at-centre-of-standoff-with-west-leaves-gibraltar-shipping-data-shows-idUKKCN1V80A2

https://theconversation.com/green-growth-is-trusted-to-fix-climate-change-heres-the-problem-with-that-120785

... The IPCC’s Special Report, released in October 2018, gives 90 scenarios that would be consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C, while also continuing with economic growth. So far, so good. But almost every single one of these scenarios relies on a negative emissions technology called Bioenergy Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) that’s completely untested at large scales. BECSS involves growing large plantations of trees, which draw down carbon from the atmosphere, then harvesting and burning them to generate energy. The CO₂ emissions from this process are then stored underground. To limit warming to 1.5°C, this technology would need to absorb 3-7 billion tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere every year. That’s at least 2,000 times more than it’s currently capable of doing. In order to absorb that much carbon, an area two to three times the size of India would need to be covered with tree plantations. Think about the difficulty of acquiring that much land, the pressure it would put on other land uses, like food production, and how much natural habitat it could erase.

No one can say that these feats are categorically impossible. But the evidence suggests that the chances of meeting the 1.5ᵒC warming target alongside continued economic growth are, at best, highly unlikely. Can we really take this risk — relying on unproven technologies to rescue us from the threat of climate change? Given the consequences of getting the gamble wrong, surely the answer is no.

Where does this leave us?

Proposals for green growth that rely solely on technology to solve the climate crisis are based on a flawed idea. This is, that the limits to the world’s physical systems are flexible, but the structure of its economies are not. This seems entirely backwards and more a reflection of the importance of politics and power in determining what solutions are deemed viable, than any reflection of reality. So society should ask, are these global institutions promoting green growth because they believe it’s the most promising way of avoiding climate breakdown? Or is it because they believe it’s simply not politically feasible to talk about the alternatives?

If we can be optimistic about humanity’s ability to develop fantastical new technologies to bend and overcome the limits of nature, can’t we lend that same optimism to developing new economic structures? Our goal in the 21st century should be creating economies that allow people to flourish, even when they don’t grow.

https://theconversation.com/green-growth-is-trusted-to-fix-climate-change-heres-the-problem-with-that-120785

... The BJP is in an unprecedentedly strong political position to give effect to its longstanding demands on Kashmir. But the velocity with which rumours are currently circulating suggests that there may be a major backlash against a move to scrap Article 35A.

In this context, it is also worth pointing out that while Article 370 is designated as “temporary”, the BJP should consider carefully the temptation to abrogate it in order to “integrate” J&K with India. Article 370(1)(c) explicitly mentions that Article 1 of the Indian Constitution applies to Kashmir through Article 370. Article 1 lists the states of the Union. This means that it is Article 370 that binds the state of J&K to the Indian Union. Removing Article 370, which can be done by a Presidential Order, would render the state independent of India.

The article was framed in this fashion for good reason. In 1949, when these discussions took place, it was likely that a plebiscite would be held in the state. The framers of the Indian Constitution had to allow for the possibility that the Indian union may have to let go of J&K. Far from effecting a closer “integration” of J&K with India, removing Article 370 might open the proverbial Pandora’s box...

https://theprint.in/opinion/with-special-status-hollowed-out-jk-considers-article-35a-last-vestige-of-real-autonomy/269547/