UAE Coast Guard Rescues 24 Crew Members After Oil Tanker Collision in Sea of Oman
In a swift and coordinated operation, the UAE Coast Guard successfully rescued all 24 crew members aboard the oil tanker ADALYNN following a maritime collision in the Sea of Oman, authorities confirmed on Tuesday.
The incident occurred approximately 24 nautical miles off the UAE coastline, where ADALYNN collided with another vessel under yet-unconfirmed circumstances. In response, the UAE Coast Guard—part of the National Guard—immediately deployed search and rescue teams to the scene.
All crew members were safely evacuated and transported to Khorfakkan Port without reported injuries. Emergency medical personnel were on standby as the rescue teams docked.
Officials praised the speed and professionalism of the rescue operation, which ensured the safe transfer of the entire crew amid potentially dangerous conditions.
An investigation has been launched to determine the cause of the collision and assess any environmental impact, especially considering the vessel's cargo of oil.
The incident highlights the UAE's strong maritime safety infrastructure and rapid response capabilities, especially in high-risk waters such as the Sea of Oman, a critical international shipping lane.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
7 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Machine Gun Kelly shares baby's name as he thanks Megan Fox for 'ultimate gift'
Machine Gun Kelly and Megan Fox, who split last year, welcomed their first child together earlier this year. MGK recently shared the baby's name with fans Machine Gun Kelly and Megan Fox welcomed their first child in March, a mere few months after they went their separate ways. The Transformers icon, 39, gave birth to their daughter amid claims the two were 'barely speaking', with sources at the time claiming things were over for them for good. MGK proudly announced the arrival of his daughter in March and shared an adorable video of their daughter alongside a heartfelt song to share the big news. He wrote: "She's finally here! ! Our little Celestial Seed. 3/27/25." MGK and Megan met for the first time on the set of Midnight in the Switchgrass, the 2021 crime thriller film. In a recent post shared this week, Machine Gun Kelly - real name Colson Baker - filmed a video of himself playing with the newborn baby, named Saga Blade Fox-Baker. He captioned the sweet video: "Saga Blade Fox-Baker [heart emoji] thank you for the ultimate gift @meganfox," with a heart on fire emoji. The star, dressed in yellow trousers and a striped shirt, was sitting on the couch and said: "You ready?" before playing the ukulele for baby Saga. Last month, MGK ditched the American Music Awards to support his former partner when she fell ill with "a little bit of a fever". In a rare update, MGK told reporters that he was going to walk the carpet and quickly head off to be with his family, before sweetly stating that it was his 'purpose' to be a dad. Speaking to E News on the red carpet, the Bloody Valentine singer said: 'She has a little bit of a fever, so I'm gonna walk the carpet and go back, y'know, handle my business, give her my pheromones and let her heal up'. Giving a further rare insight into his life as a dad to a newborn, Kelly told Access Hollywood reporters: 'When Pete was texting me one night, he was making me laugh so hard and it woke my baby up, and waking a newborn up is just not the vibe'. When asked what life is like with a newborn, MGK said: 'It's just so elated, it's just awesome, they smell so good, y'know, I was just meant to be a dad.' Speaking about his first daughter, Casie Colson Baker, who he shares with his ex Emma Cannon, MGK said: 'She's a great big sister yeah, she's able to calm her down. She just worked her first job. "I'm a very proud dad, a lot of good things happening with my kids'.
CNN
9 minutes ago
- CNN
CNN analysis explores cause of deadly Dominican nightclub roof collapse
Early warnings went unaddressed for years before one of the deadliest building collapses this century at the Jet Set nightclub, a CNN analysis has found. Stefano Pozzebon has the story.
CNN
9 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Trump is flirting with strikes in Iran. That could be a tough sell at home.
For years now, Americans have been trending in a more isolationist, anti-war direction. Particularly on the right, the ascendant view is that the world's problems are not necessarily ours. Iran could be about to test that. President Donald Trump has in recent hours employed increasingly bold rhetoric about involving the United States in Israel's attacks on Iran. On Tuesday afternoon, he wrote on Truth Social that 'we now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran.' He added that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is an 'easy target,' and said, 'We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.' He called for Iran's 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER.' These comments came as CNN reported he's indeed quickly warming to using the US military to strike Iranian nuclear facilities. Trump has saber-rattled for effect before, so it's possible this is him employing the 'madman theory' of foreign policy again. But it's also evident that we're closer to a major new military confrontation than we've been in two decades. So how might Americans view it if Trump did involve the US military offensively? It's complicated. Americans have in recent years expressed plenty of worry about Iran and even support for hypothetical military strikes. But there is reason to believe military action today could be a bridge too far – for the same reasons Americans have been drifting away from foreign interventions. Much of the polling here is dated, and views are of course subject to change based on fresh circumstances. A 2019 Fox News poll is the most recent high-quality survey to ask directly about a situation like the one Trump is contemplating. And it found a significant level of support for using action to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. American voters favored that 53% to 30% – a 23-point margin. The question from there is whether Americans would view that as indeed the purpose here. This is how Trump has billed potential strikes, saying Iran is on the verge of a nuclear weapon. But as recently as March of this year, his own director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, testified quite the opposite. She said that the intel community had assessed that 'Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader [Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.' Trump disputed Gabbard's account on Tuesday, but it's not difficult to see her words – and US intelligence assessments about the lack of imminence of an Iranian nuclear weapon – becoming a problem. That's particularly because America's last major military foray, into neighboring Iraq, became so unpopular due how the Bush administration exaggerated the threat it posed. Americans have appeared open to military action in theory. The question from there is how immediate they view that threat as being. Some surveys indicate Americans do tend to view Iran as a major threat – and on a bipartisan basis: The same Fox poll showed 57% of Democrats and 65% of Republicans called Iran a 'real national security threat.' A 2023 Fox poll showed more than 6 in 10 Democrats and about 8 in 10 Republicans were at least 'very' concerned about Iran getting a nuke. And Gallup polling last year showed 93% of Republicans and 70% of Democrats described Iran developing nuclear weapons as a 'critical threat' to the vital interests of the United States. But other surveys suggest that perceived problem might not rank particularly high. Pew Research Center polling last year showed many more Americans felt China (64%) and Russia (59%) were major military threats than Iran (42%). Pew data last year also found only 37% of Americans said limiting Iran's power and influence should be a 'top priority.' It ranked lower than limiting Russia and China's power and about the same as North Korea's – while also falling below limiting climate change. And back in 2020, just 14% of Americans thought Iran was such a threat that it required immediate military action, according to a CBS News poll conducted by SSRS. A huge majority felt it was a threat that could be contained (64%), while 17% said it wasn't a threat. All of these numbers could change if Trump goes down the path toward the US hitting Iran. He has shown an ability to get Republicans, in particular, to buy into pretty much whatever he says. (Though some prominent conservative voices like Tucker Carlson have strongly rejected the idea of strikes, meaning there could even be some resistance there). Anyway, it's likely we'd see these numbers polarize. But US intelligence assessments had concluded that not only was Iran not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon — in contrast to Israeli warnings — but that it was also up to three years from being able to produce and deliver one to a target, CNN reported Tuesday. Trump's history with Iran also looms here. In 2020, he launched a controversial strike that killed a top Iranian commander, Qasem Soleimani. And polling often showed people leaned in favor of the strike. But polling also showed Americans said by double digits that the strike made us less safe domestically. And a CNN poll at the time showed Americans disapproved of Trump's handling of the situation with Iran also by double digits, 53-42%. All of which indicates Americans are concerned about blowback and don't have a particularly high degree of faith in Trump's Iran policies. The sum total of the data suggest that, while Americans are concerned about the prospect of Iran getting a nuclear weapon, they don't necessarily view it as an immediate problem necessitating the use of the US military. If someone asks you if you are worried about a nuclear foreign country, of course that sounds scary. You might even sign off on a hypothetical in which US military might be needed to combat that threat you fear. But it doesn't mean you think that's imminent enough to warrant putting US servicemembers in harm's way and setting off a major Middle Eastern war, today. And there's plenty of reason to believe Trump could – or at least should – approach this idea cautiously.
