PDA

View Full Version : Saudi oil fields on fire, but who did it?


Mr Quatro
09-15-19, 09:22 AM
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/iran-denies-carrying-out-crippling-attacks-on-saudi-oil-facilities/ar-AAHk2cp

Iran on Sunday rejected U.S. accusations it was responsible for devastating attacks on two oil installations in Saudi Arabia that struck at the heart of the kingdom’s oil industry and forced Aramco, the state oil company, to suspend its production output by half.

A rebel group in Yemen, known as the Houthis, had claimed responsibility for Saturday’s attacks, saying that it had sent a fleet of attack drones toward the two oil facilities in eastern Saudi Arabia. Hours later, though, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, in a Twitter message, directly blamed Iran for what he said was “an unprecedented attack on the world’s energy supply” and said there was “no evidence the attacks came from Yemen” — leading to speculation they had been launched directly from Iran, or on Tehran’s behalf, by allies in Iraq.


https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAHiVp1.img?h=1884&w=1254&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f



The U.S. government believes 15 structures at Abqaiq were damaged on the west-northwest-facing sides — not the southern facades, as would be expected if the attack came from Yemen.

Khurais is one of Saudi Arabia’s largest oil fields and is believed to produce about 1.5 million barrels per day. Abqaiq is the site of the kingdom’s largest oil processing facility, operated by Aramco. It may be the world’s most important piece of oil infrastructure, built to process about 7 million barrels a day of oil so that it can be shipped out of the Persian Gulf to foreign markets.

moose1am
09-15-19, 09:50 AM
What should the Saudi's to stop these type of attacks in the future? And should Saudi Arabia attack Iran to retaliate for this attack on the Saudi Oil Fields and production facilities?

What should Trump do? :Kaleun_Cheers::Kaleun_Binocular::Kaleun_Mad:

August
09-15-19, 10:19 AM
My best guess is the militant wing of the Salvation Army.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/27/Frau_Farbissina_APIMOM.jpg

Skybird
09-15-19, 11:46 AM
What should the Saudi's to stop these type of attacks in the future? And should Saudi Arabia attack Iran to retaliate for this attack on the Saudi Oil Fields and production facilities?

What should Trump do? :Kaleun_Cheers::Kaleun_Binocular::Kaleun_Mad:
Iran and the Houthi are the same side. Which makes it unnecessary to discriminate between the two in target selection.



Of course, since this is an ongoing war, retaliation is mandatory - plus "x". The alternative is to accept defeat. I am not in knowlerdge of what the Saudi military is capable of, however, but honestly I do not expect too muchg, even if thy buy modern US weaponry like crazy - I still have on mind Gen. Frank's description of how they played "training" like little boys in '90/'91 when they got those new M1s.



Maybe they want to side up with Israel if they consider to strike Iran. Better for them it would be, no doubt. The allied UAE's fighting competence does not seem to have cut it.



Whats the legal situation in miltiary treaties between the US and SA? Is there a legal obligation of the US from some treaty of SA gets attacked directly by a foreiogn power? Formally the Houthi could not count for that since formally SA started the war, but Iran would be a different thing, I think.

Skybird
09-15-19, 11:47 AM
My best guess is the militant wing of the Salvation Army.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/27/Frau_Farbissina_APIMOM.jpg


3-pointer. :haha:

mapuc
09-15-19, 11:52 AM
My thoughts on this:

Was it Iran who directly attacked those targets in SA ?

Or did Iran do this in-directly by giving Huthi drones, weapons and train them in using these drones ?

Will USA/SA try to find an excuse to attack Iran ?

I don't like the idea in which USA and SA attack targets in Iran and then in 10-15 years from now we are being told it was based on a big lie.

Markus

Mr Quatro
09-15-19, 12:07 PM
Both sides (Iran and Yemen) are both against Saudi, especially Iran with their oil production being curtailed.

Saudi can't afford to attack Iran without first protecting their oil fields or they will loose the other half.

Nothing will happen till Saudi is ready to fight back. Meanwhile 5% of the world's oil production has been destroyed.

Price of gas going up for sure not to mention war drums are beating and no doubt in my mind President Trump will be right in the middle of it all. :yep:

mapuc
09-15-19, 12:33 PM
I can't remember his title or what he was expert on/in

Said on Danish tv, couple of month back or so

"Saudi-Arabia is no match for Iran.

Iran is the super power among the Islamic states in the region with the exception of Israel."(from my memory)

So far Iran is taking part in this civil war in Yemen by supporting the Houthi. The question is:
Will they go from supporting Houthi to full scale war against SA.
Or take directly part in the civil war in Yemen.

I fear it will turn from bad to worse.

Markus

Mr Quatro
09-15-19, 12:46 PM
I fear it will turn from bad to worse.

Markus

Me too ... This no small pipe line nor a ship that is being held captive :o

em2nought
09-15-19, 02:27 PM
John Bolton is Carrie. :D
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/e8/68/cb/e868cbf3cf99dd16bdb885752463129c.jpg

Skybird
09-15-19, 03:52 PM
e Houthi. The question is:
Will they go from supporting Houthi to full scale war against SA.
Or take directly part in the civil war in Yemen.

Iranian Revolutionary Guards are on ground in Syria, Jemen, Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon. Israel has carried oput dozens and dozens of air attacks in the past years in syria, attacking bases and depots of the RG.



Iran is fully engaged in war already. Europe (and Obama) just shy away from calling it that, because that would mean the honey moon of Europe with Iran is over. Whether the Donald means serious business or just once again shows his big mouth remains to be seen. Without massive US support, the SA military probbaly is nto mwrth all thebadrware they bought in revcent years. They are one of the biggest customers of military grade equipment and weapons since years.



Add to this the financial and logictical support by Iran for Muslim terrorism around the world.

Jeff-Groves
09-15-19, 04:23 PM
I'm not worried.
Did an online check for Armageddon and only found a Bar in Detroit.
:har:

em2nought
09-15-19, 04:58 PM
I'm not worried.
Did an online check for Armageddon and only found a Bar in Detroit.
:har:
The rapture has been foiled by Google's algorithms. :har:

Jeff-Groves
09-15-19, 05:24 PM
The rapture has been foiled by Google's algorithms. :har:
Now that makes me wonder if Google was used to target the Oil Fields!
:o
Alexa! Guide the drones to the Oil Fields!

Skybird
09-15-19, 07:02 PM
Brief, compact, uncomfortable comment.

https://translate.google.de/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.welt.de%2Fdebatte%2Fkommentare %2Farticle200344534%2FAngriff-auf-Oelanlagen-Minimales-Investment-maximales-Chaos.html

The European illusions about Iran must come to an end. It is not the innocent vitim of Americna aggression, and it never was. In fact it showed to be a bully right since Khomenei's times when it scored the first victory against the US during the hostage crisis. It then stubbornly refused to get defeated by Saddam durign the first Gulf war against Iraq. It established a plethora of retaliation options thropughtout the reigon by planting the networks of terror logistics. It finally rejects to economically collapse due to the sanctions today. Not mentioning that the claimed superior Saudi coaltion so far wa sunable to defeat the Huthi in Yemen, nor can Israel drive Iran-supported structures out of Lebanaon.

"Weak"? "Innocent"? "Victim"? By points it won every round against the West so far. And the stupid Europeans even want to give it a golden cup for that.

Catfish
09-16-19, 01:52 AM
^ or, according to this opinion piece link, Bolton was right. :hmmm:

quote from above link: "[...] showed to be a bully right since Khomenei's times when it scored the first victory against the US during the hostage crisis. It then stubbornly refused to get defeated by Saddam durign the first Gulf war against Iraq. [...]"

Lol. "Stubbornly refused to be defeated" after Saddam's attack. How could they.
Poor Saddam sure did not know what happened when he did like he always had done, to suddenly become the pariah of the US. Only showed the middle east, that siding with the US is a two-sided sword.

Jimbuna
09-16-19, 04:50 AM
IMHO it was Iran.

Jimbuna
09-16-19, 08:33 AM
The United States has issued satellite images and cited intelligence to back its allegation Iran was behind attacks on major Saudi oil facilities.

One official said there were 19 points of impact on the targets and the attacks had come from a west-north-west direction - not Houthi-controlled territory in Yemen, which lies to the south-west of the Saudi oil facilities.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-49712417

The case is in the process of being built.

ikalugin
09-16-19, 08:49 AM
It is a lengthy proxy war that just got to Saudi oil industry. May be related to the return of oil related sanctions on Iran.

Skybird
09-16-19, 08:52 AM
I am not saying it was not Iran, but the impact direciton and suggested flight paths concluded form them, means nothing. Both drones and cruise missiles can be programmed to follow preset flighttracks that - if wanted - let them running circles around a location, zig-zag, or approach from right the opposite direction at where the attacker originally launched the weapons.

The impact positions are no hard evidence.

I assume it was Iran indeed.

Russia: possible, it has a motive (pushing oil prices upwards, unsettling the West, supporting its ally Iran), but its very unlikely and wopuld be a daring game even for Russia's standards: thats why I say No.

China: not really any motive of theirs, they depend on oil imports.

Turkey: has a motive (local rivalry and seeking regional dominance, unsettling Europe), but then has also motives not to escalate this tremendously and piss the US, EU: No to Turkey.

Israel: possible, but has no real motive I am aware of, and its against their sober sense of pragmatism - so why pissing the Saudis?

Egypt: no motive I am aware of, and probably also lacking the options (I do not know the Egypt military).

Iraq? They have other things on their mind, are busy with keeping floating, and probably have not the needed hardware.

Yemen? Definitely a motive - its war - , but not without foreign help: see above list of candidates.

So I assume it was Iran. They have several motives, and the skill and technological options.

The mine attacks also were not proven to have been conducted by Iran, and still I assume it was them.

Pompejo needs to learn the difference between "evidence" - and "motive" and "hint", however. Talking about evidence to the public but not revealing said evidence due to protecting secret sources, does not count.

Skybird
09-16-19, 09:07 AM
Just in: a speaker of the military coalition said in Riad that they have evidence that the weapons used in the attacks originate from Iran. Early news says nothing on whether they know who fired them: Houthi or Iranians. Is of little interest to me anyway.

If true, I think we are heading for a a retaliatory air strike against Iranian oil facilities and air defences, maybe also naval bases and vessels. The US and its geostrategic claims cannot afford to let this go by unanswered. If they want to be taken serious anymore, they must retaliate. "Empires cannot afford to not act".

Catfish
09-16-19, 09:26 AM
Iran is the most probable candidate, but retaliating is the problem. It is all quite asymmetrical. Certainly the US could destroy military installations, ships, whatever, but what hinders anyone to use drones frome wherever, for whatever purpose?

Skybird
09-16-19, 09:44 AM
Iran is the most probable candidate, but retaliating is the problem. It is all quite asymmetrical. Certainly the US could destroy military installations, ships, whatever, but what hinders anyone to use drones frome wherever, for whatever purpose?
It has already been done. Same with mine attacks - it has already been done. The escalation already has been staged.

Lets show Iran that they are extremely vulnerable and have plenty of space and shorreline and oil harbours and refineries to protect, too. Plus the other civilian industry that is there. Not to mention nuclear research sites.

They got away with several attacks by now. They got away with hijacking, and lying about Syria embargo breaking. Should they also get away with a ful blown military attack, against another huge nation?

The red line has already been overstepped several times. Washington makes itself laughable if they do not react. None of their "allies" in the region who already were alienated by Obama, will believe them and trust them anymore. Which opens the door for China, and widens it for Russia.


The test of brute force is simple. Who breaks fist, looses.

Mr Quatro
09-16-19, 10:31 AM
After years of the SA military spending billions of dollars on SA defenses they sure do look soft and weak to me.:yep:

kraznyi_oktjabr
09-16-19, 11:46 AM
Yemen? Definitely a motive - its war - , but not without foreign help: see above list of candidates.Another option is doing it like the Daesh did: use agents abroad to acquire necessary components. Minor problem is acquiring skilled personel capable of assembling and operating your new drone fleet. Major problem is how to get hard currency to pay for all that expensive stuff.


All above assuming, that Iran has nothing to do with this. If it provides solutions to "minor" and "major" problems, then there is no need to tarnish their own hands.

Skybird
09-16-19, 01:46 PM
Apparently it is not as easy as the US and SA claim to identify who fired the "things" and from where. Its not even clear beyond doubt, despite the press conference in Riad, what the "things" actually were.


https://translate.google.de/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.spiegel.de%2Fwissenschaft%2Fte chnik%2Fangriffe-auf-saudische-oelanlagen-das-raetseln-der-waffenexperten-a-1287091.html

Skybird
09-16-19, 01:53 PM
Technology transfer as well as the wide distrrubution of needed components and knowledge on the worl market and via internet, make it only a question of time until weapon-carrying drones will be used by criom inal cartels as well, and organised crime, for assassination, for terror, for blackmailing. And the use of self-made weapons to deceive own identity of ther attacker will allow states to increasingly strike without needing to fear that the world public will point finger at the responsible attacker.



The fun with it has only just started.



On a side note, the Patriot system once again has worked not well, as the article I linked shows. The system is being criticised and under suspicion by some experts already since the second Gulf war. It probably is "too conventional" in design and thinking/doctrine behind it.

mapuc
09-16-19, 01:54 PM
If they are going to retaliate this attack on SA soil

I would not be surprised if USA helped SA, by taking on the Iranian defense and airsupport and then let the Saudis do the bombing of well picked targets.

Markus

Skybird
09-16-19, 02:02 PM
If they are going to retaliate this attack on SA soil

I would not be surprised if USA helped SA, by taking on the Iranian defense and airsupport and then let the Saudis do the bombing of well picked targets.

Markus
I am not certain that SA has the capacities to do this.


BTW, I have my doubts that the attack in SA indeed was carried out by drones. When looking at the tanks that have those holes in them, these holes are all right in the centre of mass, the targets where hit with tremendous precision. I think it were cruise missiles of any kind.

Mr Quatro
09-16-19, 02:13 PM
I am not certain that SA has the capacities to do this.


BTW, I have my doubts that the attack in SA indeed was carried out by drones. When looking at the tanks that have those holes in them, these holes are all right in the centre of mass, the targets where hit with tremendous precision. I think it were cruise missiles of any kind.

I was thinking the same thing, plus 19 targets hit blamed on 10 drones ??? :o

Skybird
09-16-19, 03:35 PM
For whatever Wikipedia is worth on these issues, they say SA has the second strongest air force in the ME after Israel, their whole military counts as the second strongest in the region again after that of Israel, in recent years it had the 3rd-5th largest defence budget in the world, it spends 10-14% of its GNP on defense. It counts as one of the most modern equipped militaries in the world. And it operates its own E-3s.

Formally it still is at war with Israel. But both sides learned to let live and live with each other - Israel is no threat for the power structure of the political SA and the ruling House and has zero interest to intermeddle there, and one has shared enemies, namely Iran.


Somehow I would have believed that Egypt rivals SA more closely in military strength.

Bilge_Rat
09-16-19, 03:36 PM
Iran seems the most likely suspect.

I doubt very much you will see U.S. attacks on Iran itself. Trump is heading into a tough re-election campaign and the last thing he wants is getting into a shooting war with Iran.

You will most likely see a ramping up of the current measures, i.e. move in an aircraft carrier, position missiles in Saudi Arabia, ramping up the pressure on the EU for tougher sanctions, etc.

mapuc
09-16-19, 03:54 PM
Either way we will know in the next couple of month or so

If Iran have been attacked by SA or USA or a joint between these two countries.

Or USA/Trump have manage to (forgot the word) and Europa understand Iran is no good and they put sanction on Iran

We will know in a couple of month or so.

Markus

Platapus
09-16-19, 04:07 PM
Since Iran knows that it would be the first one suspected of this and that since we have Trump as president, with his "unpredictable" reputation,



Why would Iran choose to do this at this time?


Why would they decide to attack this target at this time?

What is the risk benefit equation for this decision?



The Iranians are many things, but stupid they ain't.



They are not going to do anything like this unless it serves a significant purpose at this time that will justify it, especially when Iran is trying to maintain sympathy with the EU.


I don't know of any tactical or strategic goal of Iran that would justify this attack at this time. It is entirely possible that there are goals that I am not aware of, of course.



However, a group like the Houthis. once they got the needed weapons, might decide to attack this target at this time just to mess things up.



The Houthis have much less to lose than the Iranians. Therefore they are more prone to take these types of risks.



Just because Iran supports the Houthis does not mean that they control them. We have learned that lesson ourselves.



Lots of unanswered questions that really need answering before we make any decisions.

Mr Quatro
09-16-19, 04:20 PM
Since Iran knows that it would be the first one suspected of this and that since we have Trump as president, with his "unpredictable" reputation,

Why would Iran choose to do this at this time?

Why would they decide to attack this target at this time?

What is the risk benefit equation for this decision?

The Iranians are many things, but stupid they ain't.

They are not going to do anything like this unless it serves a significant purpose at this time that will justify it, especially when Iran is trying to maintain sympathy with the EU.

I don't know of any tactical or strategic goal of Iran that would justify this attack at this time. It is entirely possible that there are goals that I am not aware of, of course.

However, a group like the Houthis. once they got the needed weapons, might decide to attack this target at this time just to mess things up.

The Houthis have much less to lose than the Iranians. Therefore they are more prone to take these types of risks.

Just because Iran supports the Houthis does not mean that they control them. We have learned that lesson ourselves.

Lots of unanswered questions that really need answering before we make any decisions.

I can't answer all of your questions, but by blaming the attacks on the rebel group Houthis ... Iran hopes to convince the EU to be on their side in ignoring President Trump sanctions on Iran's oil production due to Europe needs oil.

They know President Trump won't give in ... It's sort of like open black mail with Iran saying stop these sanctions and will supply you with oil. Don't stop the sanctions and our little rebel friends will take out the other half of Saudi's oil productions.

mapuc
09-16-19, 04:46 PM
After having read Platapus comment a thought I never have thought of before popped up

Could it be an inside job ?

To get the war between USA and Iran started ?

Or is my imagination running away with me again ?

Markus

Skybird
09-16-19, 05:20 PM
Why would Iran choose to do this at this time?

Why would they decide to attack this target at this time?

What is the risk benefit equation for this decision?

The Iranians are many things, but stupid they ain't.

They are not going to do anything like this unless it serves a significant purpose at this time that will justify it, especially when Iran is trying to maintain sympathy with the EU.

I don't know of any tactical or strategic goal of Iran that would justify this attack at this time. It is entirely possible that there are goals that I am not aware of, of course.

However, a group like the Houthis. once they got the needed weapons, might decide to attack this target at this time just to mess things up.

The Houthis have much less to lose than the Iranians. Therefore they are more prone to take these types of risks.

Just because Iran supports the Houthis does not mean that they control them. We have learned that lesson ourselves.

Lots of unanswered questions that really need answering before we make any decisions.


Why Iran would do it?


Why would Iran mine-attack tankers, like in the past weeks?



Why would Iran hijack a British tanker in retaliation for the Brits catching a blockad runner who violated Syria blockade?


Its abiout shopwing strength. Shjpowin g that one doe snot allow getting bullied into9 corners: ba synctions, ba threats, by econoimic setbacks. Its about showing that one can indeed retaliuate in many different ways. Its about weakening the income situation of the enemy in the procy war they fight against SA.


It may be about itnernal power struggles, and a confpict between the Iranian president, and the RGs. It may be about whjat Trumps doers all the time: being unpredictable, playing the madman. Its about trying to drive an even deeper wedge between fearful Europeans who altrready talk aboutdeescalation again, and feet-stomping Trumpian America. Its about sending a message in the endless nuclear research conflict.


Many good reaosns spring to mind why Iran woudl want to strike against its arch enemy's archilles heel. One only needs to want to see them. They are not hard to see at all.



Currently, it all hints at Iran. The missiles available to the Houthis, as the German-English translated link I gave explains, are a bit too short-legged as if they could do this attack from Yemen territory, it would be a range at the maximum of what their known arsenal can do - and then with this kind of precision and even flying turns and circles aorudn the target to strike it from almost the opposite direction?


I think Iran also learned form the Russian green little men attackl on the Crimean peninsula. Russia of course knew that the west would sujspect Russia imemdiately, but stobbornly and rethorically rejecting that it was involved caused the kind of polticla confusion and self-paralysis that the Kremlin wanted and expected. Result: No reaction worth the name from outside the Ukraine. Becasue all the amny oh so concerned Europeans and potlicans cautioned everybody on that the identity of the little green men was "unclear".


It was not unclear. Never, for not even one single day.



I think that the mone attacks in the Gulf and the missile attack now probably are calculated to work by the same logic. Trump did promise tio bring the troops home, and he cares for trying to fulfill the prmsies he amde to those that voted for him. He needs them in the next camaogin again. Thats why he is kind of egg-dancing over the Iran issue and is looking anythging but determined. Under these preconditions it makes no sense to me to assume it could be a new Gulf-version of the "Tonkin"-incident that the US has staged to bring America into a war with Iran. I think Trump will try all he can to keep America out.



Or was it Israel? They have the means, and the motive could be to bring SA into an open war against Israel's biggest enemy, Iran. But that would be quite a dimension for a secret operation by Israel. No, I think I attribute the missile attacks now to the same attacker who is responsible for the mine attacks in past weeks. And I do not think that was Israel either.

Platapus
09-16-19, 06:04 PM
After having read Platapus comment a thought I never have thought of before popped up

Could it be an inside job ?

To get the war between USA and Iran started ?

Or is my imagination running away with me again ?

Markus




In my line of work we have a saying

Cui Bono Fuisset?

"to whom might it be for a benefit?

When analyzing instances, like this, we always ask this question. Whenever we are evaluating possible responses, we ask this question.

That was the basis of my post. Who benefits from this target being hit at this time?

With the information that is available, I am not seeing a benefit to Iran. Additional information may change that, of course.


As for your post?

An inside job? Doubtful. There would have to be a considerable benefit before the Saudi's would damage this facility. I can't see that happening. There is no benefit for the Saudi's at this time.

No one is going to benefit from a war between Iran and the US. Not even the fringe groups. They operate better in Low Intensity Conflicts.

The only entities that would benefit from this war would be parties not involved like China or perhaps Russia. It is unknown whether Russia will get involved in operation in Iran at this time.

Trump may have fantasies of being a "war time president" in hope that this will help his re-election, but not even Trump wants a war in the ME.

Of course, we have to consider the possibility that Trump will react emotionally and rashly to this.

If a third party wants to start a war between Iran and the US, there are easier and better targets to attack to force a war. One with a lot more public deaths for example.

Absent of contrary information, a good safe assumption is to go with the hypothesis that has the fewer assumptions, making sure that our biases don't taint our analysis.

But we should always consider alternative hypotheses. There is even a methodology that we use called Analysis of Competing Hypotheses of which I am a big fan.

What we have a lot of is not enough information about this incident. We can speculate and the issue is ripe for confirmation biases. I don't think that any action should be taken until we have more information.

This attack, does not require an immediate reaction and certainly not an immediate reaction on the part of the US. The Saudi's may have a different opinion, but we should let the Saudi's make their own decisions but not make our decision.

We should not let who ever attacked that facility or the Saudi's to push the US into taking any action with careful thought.

I really wish that both houses would get together and rescind the current AUMF. It is far too vague and open ended for safety. Congress then should resolve to only vote for very specific AUMFs and any future AUMFs should have a positive end date. Any renewal of a AUMF should require a positive vote in the Congress.

Justification for AUMFs should be so patent that getting congress to renew it should be clear and straightforward.

ikalugin
09-16-19, 08:10 PM
I think this was done by Iranian proxies, using Iranian weapons.

The point is simple - if Iran is banned from trading oil unfairly (by US, which is KSA ally, and which conveniently axed the deal that lifted the sanctions over, ehem, dubious reasons), then Iran feels that it is justified to close down the oil exports of it's enemies (ie KSA that Iran has been fighting in Yemen and elsewhere for years) via the use of force.

But considering the scale of the attacks I would guess that this is still more about signalling.

Buddahaid
09-16-19, 08:43 PM
Trump should just shut up and work behind the scenes. It's a tactic he just doesn't understand because he can't stop his mouth, ever. The Iranians know this, the freaking world knows this, and it is counterproductive.

Rockstar
09-16-19, 09:04 PM
I think whether by proxy or not Iran is maybe trying to influence American voters. By pressuring the current administration into something nobody here wants, war. If nobody goes to war it may in turn make the current administration look ineffective. Get someone more Iranian government friendly and get the cash flowing again.

Etela'at, Iran's leading hardline newspaper, saluted Senator Bernie Sanders: its front page headline read, "Sanders: I'll Return to JCPOA on First Day of Presidency!" The Jomhori Islami newspaper boasted that "US Representatives Urge Return to JCPOA". Iran's Vice President responded, according to Iran's Ebtekar newspaper, by stating that "Iran's Return to JCPOA is Very Easy".

"As long as Iran has money, we will have money...." — Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, Secretary General of the Lebanese paramilitary party

http://www.parstimes.com/news/

Mr Quatro
09-16-19, 11:06 PM
Drone attack will probably prove not true ... more like a cruise missile with precision aiming.

https://specials-images.forbesimg.com/imageserve/5d7ffe226de3150009a43a5a/960x0.jpg?cropX1=0&cropX2=2411&cropY1=0&cropY2=1356

Iran does have a cruise missile that would fit the bill: the Soumar, which was revealed during a ceremony in March 2015.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/hisutton/2019/09/16/attacks-on-saudi-oil-facilities-foster-suspicions-of-use-of-quds-or-soumar-cruise-missiles/#500195123559


Unlike other Houthi missile attacks, the oil-processing plants, far away from Yemen in the northeast of Saudi Arabia, were hit in a coordinated attack, multiple times and with surgical precision. While initial reports stated that drones were used in the attack, one possible scenario, unconfirmed at the time of writing, is that Tomahawk-like cruise missiles were employed, fired either from Iran or an Iranian base in Iraq.

Skybird
09-17-19, 03:34 AM
No one is going to benefit from a war between Iran and the US. Not even the fringe groups. They operate better in Low Intensity Conflicts.

The only entities that would benefit from this war would be parties not involved like China or perhaps Russia. It is unknown whether Russia will get involved in operation in Iran at this time.


Somebody fired missiles nevertheless.




But we should always consider alternative hypotheses. There is even a methodology that we use called Analysis of Competing Hypotheses of which I am a big fan.

Yes. I use it myself. In the movie "World War Z" with Brad Pitt it was called the (Israeli) tenth man method, it means that it was the duty of one man in the advisor council that if all others agreed on one thing, this one man had to assume and plan accordingly on ground of the total, direct opposite, as a safety. I however recommend care when using this methid becasue it can easiyl lure you into total self-aparlysis and utmost inefficiency in dealing with what actually IS the penultimate reality that finally will find you one way or the other.


You repeated that you see Iran not benifitting from thsi attack. But you fall victim to one flaw there - you define their benefit on groudns of your reason, and see it through your eyes - not theirs. But the latter is essential, even more so when dealign with affairs in this region of the world where shine and pride counts so much and the need to maintain a proud facade even is reflected in the overboarding floweriness of verbal phrasing and metaphors in language. That is true for arabs, but for Persians, whom I happen to know a bit, too.


From an Iranian point of view you have severla valid motivations for these attacks. This does not mean that the attack is carried out by Iran. But evertyhign hints at them currently, like it is the case with the mine attacks in the Gulf, too.



Dont look at it through your eyes. Look their their eyes, at least use their glasses. Then it makes sense.


Ikalugin probaly is on the right track when saying they were "signalling". Me too thinks they are communicating a message: a reminder of that it takes two to tango.

Onkel Neal
09-17-19, 05:13 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni6stxODJAE

Jimbuna
09-17-19, 06:28 AM
Iran has dismissed US accusations it was behind drone attacks on Saudi Arabia's oil plants, and warned it is ready for a "full-fledged" war.
https://news.sky.com/story/iran-says-its-ready-for-war-with-us-after-saudi-oil-attack-accusations-11810252

It will prove interesting if and how the POTUS will respond to this.

Bilge_Rat
09-17-19, 08:54 AM
Or was it Israel? They have the means, and the motive could be to bring SA into an open war against Israel's biggest enemy, Iran. But that would be quite a dimension for a secret operation by Israel. No, I think I attribute the missile attacks now to the same attacker who is responsible for the mine attacks in past weeks. And I do not think that was Israel either.

Israel has become a de facto ally of Saudi Arabia over the past years since they have a common enemy: Iran. That has allowed them to break their decades long diplomatic isolation in the region. I don't see any upside for Israel to be behind the attack.

ikalugin
09-17-19, 08:57 AM
Israel has become a de facto ally of Saudi Arabia over the past years since they have a common enemy: Iran. That has allowed them to break their decades long diplomatic isolation in the region. I don't see any upside for Israel to be behind the attack.
Apart of the false flag against Iran and getting US to intervene?

Skybird
09-17-19, 10:35 AM
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-49733558


The US has reportedly identified locations in Iran from which drones and cruise missiles were launched against the Saudi oil facilities on Saturday.
Senior officials told CBS News that the locations were in southern Iran, at the northern end of the Gulf.
Saudi air defences did not stop the drones and missiles because they were pointed southwards, to prevent attacks from Yemen, the officials added.If true, then it is no longer a proxy war, but a full blown direct war. taking out half of the oil refining industry of another state is no longer just an "incident" or a continuation of diplomacy with other means. Its a war attack, plain and simple.

If true, then the iranophile Europeans look like idiots once again. And a huge military reaction can be the only reasonable reaction. Else the US looks like an idiot, too.

As I see it we are only one presentation of evidence away from open war.

Mean while China tightens ties with Iran, too, like Russia. Another reason not to just sit still.

Or the US plans to leave the whole ME. That bwill piss everybody in trhe MEW, will desatroy the credibility of the US, the diplomatic trustiworethiness of its treaties and its words, and will render NATO pointless a treaty, too. Splendid isolation,yaddayadda, blabla, it spopular in the Us maybe, I understand. But that means automatically a leave from the biw world stage, and a loss of trustworthiness with Pacific allies as well. Taiwan, Japan, Phillipines, Asutralöia are watching the Gulf. What the US is doing there, will make these states evalaute the value of their treaties with the US. Leave the Gulf - and drive Pacific allies into submission to China by that. Good way to go if the US wishes to dwarfen itself for the rest of this century.


Empires must act. They cannot afford to act not.

Mr Quatro
09-17-19, 10:48 AM
President Trump has already stated that he does not want war and that if SA wants our help they will have to pay for it.

Which leaves a back door open to Russian offering their latest air defences (for a price of course).

SA has to worry about the rest of their oil production before testing Iran's plan to wipe them out and hear all of Europe yell "Leave Iran's oil productions alone they are all we have left to get through winter"

Which is not true with Russia standing by to ramp up oil production.

Oh what a tangled web we weave :hmmm:

mapuc
09-17-19, 11:13 AM
If as Skybird wrote

"If true, then it is no longer a proxy war, but a full blown direct war."

Then they have gone from supporting their allied in the civil war in Yemen to engage the biggest enemy in this civil war in full scale.

Markus

Jimbuna
09-17-19, 11:19 AM
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has called for a return to the 2015 international deal curbing Iran's nuclear activities as the only way to defuse tensions in the Middle East.https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/09/saudi-oil-attacks-latest-updates-190916102800973.html

Oh really!

Catfish
09-17-19, 02:05 PM
^ Oh really yes and why not? What has Trump reached applying more and more pressure to make a deal with Iran? Where is it?

Trump has shrunk to a hesitating president, whose foreign political scope further shrinks with the blurring economics.
This escalation in the Middle East is also Trump's crisis. So he aggravated the conflict with Iran getting out of the nuclear deal. He wanted to negotiate a new deal, this was the official doctrine, but never were the USA more far away from negotiating usable results in a dialogue than now. If his plan was to bully, frighten, negotiate and then succeed with a better deal, it has failed completely. As Skybird said the Iranians do not think like that, nor do they let themselves be driven to give in to demands and western ideas by force.

So his options are now limited, apart from the next election which is much more important to him than the US' standing in the world. A war with Iran would further accelerate the oil price development, which is already on the rise. Trump wants to evade a recession in the election year, but it is his own fault causing the economical ruckus, from Europe to China. He has harrasssed international trade so long with threats and taxes that the US economical growth finally gave in. If there will be a wave of lay-offs in the election year …

So he is a bit more reluctant now and sends cautious messages to the german automotive industry, there are suddenly negotiations in China about a new trade treaty "forgetting" taxes, and one of the hawks (Bolton) has been fired. But diplomacy is complicated as the whole world, and destroying it was easy. Generating trust will take decades.

Catfish
09-17-19, 03:11 PM
Bad translation by Google

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.spiegel.de%2Fwissenschaft%2Fte chnik%2Fangriffe-auf-saudische-oelanlagen-das-raetseln-der-waffenexperten-a-1287091.html

mapuc
09-17-19, 03:43 PM
Has to add something to my last comment

Sanction or embargo would not be enough, if the attack in SA came from Iran.

The question is:

Will SA wait until the UN have finished their investigation or will they attack as soon as possible

Or will USA conduct this attack on Iran by them self ?

Markus

Mr Quatro
09-17-19, 03:50 PM
US Congress (controlled by democrats) urging caution and demand to be included in any war strike plans.

I wonder if Iran knew this all along no quick strike means more time for Iran to bluff their way out by saying we will finish SA off if you come against us?

Skybird
09-17-19, 03:57 PM
SA has to worry about the rest of their oil production before testing Iran's plan to wipe them out and hear all of Europe yell "Leave Iran's oil productions alone they are all we have left to get through winter"

That is NOT an issue at all, the EU does not import such decisive amounts of oil from either Iran or SA.

https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/172674/umfrage/verteilung-der-oelimporte-der-eu-nach-herkunft/

Germany for itself imports its oil from 3 dozen different nations. 2016 it got no oil from either SA or Iran. Our main suppliers were and are Russia (39% in 2016), Norway (11%) and the UK (10%). Kazachstan and Azerbaidschan already trail behind a bit, Algeria, Nigeria and Iraq trail even more clearly.

Iran will get away with this, I think, and with even further provocations they will get away as well. The Europeans are impotent, the Saudis without the US cannot chew the bite that a war with Iran would mean if they retaliate in full, and the US is unwilling to retaliate. Maybe a limited smybolic one-time strike by SA and US forces, and thats it.

The Iranians have learned a lot from Putin. But sly they already were before. This standoff will become another strategic defeat in a long string of defeats for the West in the recent two decades. Fighting the wrong wars, and fighting these in the wrong manner, and not fighting those that should be fought. The Iran story should have dropped from the headlines already 15 years ago. But then the concerned rose their heads, and the wavering and the indifferent, and so now we are where we are.

A wise man fights his enemies while they are still small and weak, he does not wait until they have grown strong.

Rockstar
09-17-19, 04:01 PM
Oh really!


Im a little confused. Is Aunty Merkle speaking on behalf of the EU or Germany? How exactly does the power structure work over there who speaks for whom?

mapuc
09-17-19, 04:41 PM
I turn it around so to say

Which country is Iran selling their oil to ?

From what I understand they sell most of their oil to

India, China, Turkey and some other countries-third world countries

When I saw the word China on the wiki-page

I knew directly they would vote no to any steps in the UN if a UN-supported action against Iran is planned.

Markus

Onkel Neal
09-17-19, 07:01 PM
Has to add something to my last comment

Sanction or embargo would not be enough, if the attack in SA came from Iran.

The question is:

Will SA wait until the UN have finished their investigation or will they attack as soon as possible

Or will USA conduct this attack on Iran by them self ?

Markus

Why would we do it? It was an attack on Saudi Arabia, let them hit back. Aren't they men? Why does the US have to do the heavy lifting all the time?

Mr Quatro
09-17-19, 08:33 PM
Why would we do it? It was an attack on Saudi Arabia, let them hit back. Aren't they men? Why does the US have to do the heavy lifting all the time?

:Kaleun_Applaud::Kaleun_Applaud::Kaleun_Applaud:

Take Israel and Russia and other suspicious nations off the list too ...

If Iran didn't do it why don't they help find out who did?

One more clue this is a religeous war about how to serve their God :yep:

Jimbuna
09-18-19, 05:12 AM
^ Oh really yes and why not? What has Trump reached applying more and more pressure to make a deal with Iran? Where is it?

Trump has shrunk to a hesitating president, whose foreign political scope further shrinks with the blurring economics.
This escalation in the Middle East is also Trump's crisis. So he aggravated the conflict with Iran getting out of the nuclear deal. He wanted to negotiate a new deal, this was the official doctrine, but never were the USA more far away from negotiating usable results in a dialogue than now. If his plan was to bully, frighten, negotiate and then succeed with a better deal, it has failed completely. As Skybird said the Iranians do not think like that, nor do they let themselves be driven to give in to demands and western ideas by force.

So his options are now limited, apart from the next election which is much more important to him than the US' standing in the world. A war with Iran would further accelerate the oil price development, which is already on the rise. Trump wants to evade a recession in the election year, but it is his own fault causing the economical ruckus, from Europe to China. He has harrasssed international trade so long with threats and taxes that the US economical growth finally gave in. If there will be a wave of lay-offs in the election year …

So he is a bit more reluctant now and sends cautious messages to the german automotive industry, there are suddenly negotiations in China about a new trade treaty "forgetting" taxes, and one of the hawks (Bolton) has been fired. But diplomacy is complicated as the whole world, and destroying it was easy. Generating trust will take decades.

I take it you're a big Trump fan then :)

Jimbuna
09-18-19, 05:13 AM
Im a little confused. Is Aunty Merkle speaking on behalf of the EU or Germany? How exactly does the power structure work over there who speaks for whom?

That is precisely the point I was trying to make :yep:

Onkel Neal
09-18-19, 05:57 AM
:Kaleun_Applaud::Kaleun_Applaud::Kaleun_Applaud:

Take Israel and Russia and other suspicious nations off the list too ...

If Iran didn't do it why don't they help find out who did?

One more clue this is a religeous war about how to serve their God :yep:


No, I meant, why does everyone expect the US to take part in retaliation? Iran did not strike the US, it struck SA. Let SA do the fighting.

I anticipate a new bulletin in a few days: Cruise missiles and drones take out vital part of Iranian oil production. Win win.

Skybird
09-18-19, 05:57 AM
Why would we do it? It was an attack on Saudi Arabia, let them hit back. Aren't they men? Why does the US have to do the heavy lifting all the time?
Absolutely, I tend to tick the same way. I only add that not reacting to this means that America can in the medium run say goodbye to its credibility in the ME region, which already has suffered due to the 2003 story and then Obama. If America wants to clean ME off its diplomatci list and get untied from it, then you are fine. The vacuum will be filled by China and Russia. If you are fine with that too, fine again.



But if you want to continue playing an influential role in that part of the world, for whatever your reasons are, you cannot afford not to react to this, since you claim SA to be your most important ally in the Arab world.


Whether it should be that, remains a subject for discussion.

Onkel Neal
09-18-19, 06:23 AM
Absolutely, I tend to tick the same way. I only add that not reacting to this means that America can in the medium run say goodbye to its credibility in the ME region, which already has suffered due to the 2003 story and then Obama. If America wants to clean ME off its diplomatci list and get untied from it, then you are fine. The vacuum will be filled by China and Russia. If you are fine with that too, fine again.



But if you want to continue playing an influential role in that part of the world, for whatever your reasons are, you cannot afford not to react to this, since you claim SA to be your most important ally in the Arab world.


Whether it should be that, remains a subject for discussion.


Nicely put, I agree with your summary. I vote we the US hand over the ME influential role to Russia, China, or anyone else who wants it.

Catfish
09-18-19, 06:23 AM
@Jim: ^ A Trump fan? Of(f) course :haha:

That is precisely the point I was trying to make :yep:
"Oh really?"

Quote from your link:

"British Prime Minister Boris Johnson (https://www.aljazeera.com/topics/people/boris-johnson.html) and German Chancellor Angela Merkel (https://www.aljazeera.com/topics/people/angela-merkel.html) discussed the attacks during a telephone call, agreeing on "the need to work together, alongside international partners, to agree a collective response," according to Downing Street.
Johnson and Merkel stressed the "importance of avoiding the further escalation of tensions in the region"."

"We believe that the deal to stop Iran from acquiring military nuclear capabilities is a building block we need to get back to," Merkel said, during a news conference with Jordan's King Abdullah.

"But there is also a long list of other burdens coming from Iran like the ballistic missiles programme and its engagement in Syria," she said. "In recent days tensions in the region rose and Germany will always be in favour of de-escalation and long-term solutions are only possible through a political process."

Looks a bit different if not pulled out of context imho :03:
But then it's an Al Jazeera artricle after all.

ikalugin
09-18-19, 06:34 AM
No, I meant, why does everyone expect the US to take part in retaliation? Iran did not strike the US, it struck SA. Let SA do the fighting.

I anticipate a new bulletin in a few days: Cruise missiles and drones take out vital part of Iranian oil production. Win win.
Because KSA is a de-facto long term USA ally.
Because USA is the world policeman.
If USA desires to maintain hegemony and the grip on the global affairs, it may consider reacting to maintain it's relevance.

In the other news - apparently that site was covered by US made air defense systems (ie a Patriot SAM).

Bilge_Rat
09-18-19, 08:45 AM
well, anyone who thinks Iran should be rewarded for its naked aggression by going back to the sweetheart 2015 nuclear deal is as naive as Neville Chamberlain at Munich in 1938.

Yes, the U.S. has to respond, but it has to be the right response.

Just blindly carrying out military strikes just plays into Iran's hands.

Iran attacking saudi Arabia is a major escalation.

Why would they do it? Iran seems to be goading the U.S. into a military response. It strikes me that the situation in Iran must be getting desparate and either the regime is losing control of certain factions or wants to provoke a war to shore up its internal support.

What the U.S. should be doing is following the Bush sr. model from 1990 and trying to build an international coalition with a common plan of action.

If the regime in Tehran is tottering, now is the time to ratchet up sanctions even more.

Mr Quatro
09-18-19, 09:23 AM
There is a story in the Old Testament of the Holy Bible about a city that was besieged by it's enemies and the city was running out of food and water when an old woman came to the gate and yelled at the captain of the army against them, "What is it that you want"?

The captain said the head of your leader .. She said, "You shall have it by morning" She threw the head over the gate the next morning and the army left off destroying the village.

The people of Iran are tired of the 10% of Iran telling them what to do They could stop all of this by throwing someone's head over the wall.

President Trump's hands are tied without Congressional approval which would take weeks in this country, but what a great opportunity we are wasting not to try and put together a way to take out Iran's nuclear ambitions, long range missile programs, navy, air force by surrounding them and threatening just that till they give in or start a war first. :yep:

Skybird
09-18-19, 10:13 AM
Nicely put, I agree with your summary. I vote we the US hand over the ME influential role to Russia, China, or anyone else who wants it.
I could understand that. And if I were you/the US, I would probably decide to go that direction, too.
Which as a consequence means I would untie the US from NATO, too.

Jimbuna
09-18-19, 10:19 AM
Saudi Arabia's defence ministry has shown off what is says is wreckage of drones and cruise missiles that prove Iranian involvement in weekend attacks on two oil facilities.

It said 18 drones and seven cruise missiles struck from a direction that ruled out Yemen as a source.

Yemen's Iran-backed Houthi rebels had said they were behind the attacks.

Iran has denied any involvement and warned it would retaliate against any military response.

The Saudi defence ministry briefing said the wreckage showed the attacks were “unquestionably sponsored by Iran”.

A spokesman showed off what was said to be a delta wing of an Iranian UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) along with other weapons debris.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-49746645

Interesting and hopefully some filmed/photographic evidence will be shown later today.

mapuc
09-18-19, 11:43 AM
Why would we do it? It was an attack on Saudi Arabia, let them hit back. Aren't they men? Why does the US have to do the heavy lifting all the time?

I understand you and millions of other Americans who is tired, every time a politicians from the rest of the world phone you when they are in trouble.

I can only say or put forward what they have said in our news channel/program

If the attack came from Iran, USA can not just sit there on its back and do nothing, Trump have to show he mean business.

Markus

Rockstar
09-18-19, 11:59 AM
I understand you and millions of other Americans who is tired, every time a politicians from the rest of the world phone you when they are in trouble.

I can only say or put forward what they have said in our news channel/program

If the attack came from Iran, USA can not just sit there on its back and do nothing, Trump have to show he mean business.

Markus


I dont think we are doing nothing. I think the sanctions are having the desired effect. I think these attacks may be sign Rouhani is struggling to stay in power by supporting acts of aggression to cover his political weakness. Kinda like a cornered rat. A shooting war could be used by Rouhani politically to unite internal opposition against outside agression. The last thing on any western powers list of things to do, is to return fire. I suggest we just sit back and watch him squirm.

mapuc
09-18-19, 02:42 PM
We get our information from our national tv-channels or some international news channel.

I get mine from the public tv channels in Denmark, Sweden and a Danish News channel TV2 News they have a man in USA his name is Jesper Steinmetz

About 60 minutes ago I saw him on this channel saying(from my memory and only taking some important part of it)

The Minister of foreign affairs Mike Pompeo, said before he landed in Saudi-Arabia

This attack is a declaration of war(He didn't say if this declaration of war was against USA or Saudi-Arabia)

Later on he said something like:

Saudi-Arabia is expecting the US to do the hard and dirty job for them.

Secondly Rockstars comment above made me remember an expert on another Danish tv-channel.

Who said he understood why Trump would hesitate any attack on Iran, it could set the whole region on fire.

Markus

Skybird
09-18-19, 04:46 PM
I dont think we are doing nothing. I think the sanctions are having the desired effect. I think these attacks may be sign Rouhani is struggling to stay in power by supporting acts of aggression to cover his political weakness. Kinda like a cornered rat. A shooting war could be used by Rouhani politically to unite internal opposition against outside agression. The last thing on any western powers list of things to do, is to return fire. I suggest we just sit back and watch him squirm.Do not take it for granted Rouhani controls the RG - neither he nor any other Iranian president does. The RG play their own game, and are a state within the state, corrupt, controlling signfiicant parts of key economy and industries in Iran. Their top commander have their own financial interests. Its a gang. The scenario that the RG attacked without Rouhani authorizing it, or even just knowing of it, is absolutely realistic. I seem to recall that the RG and Rouhani are anything but close friends. The RG are hardliners. The president is more or less hardliner as well, but hides it more or less politely on the diplomatic stage. The nuclear armament of Iran they all want, and their top cleric as well.

Julhelm
09-18-19, 05:58 PM
The closest analogue to the Revolutionary Guard would be the SS.

Skybird
09-18-19, 06:54 PM
^ No, the SS never turned against or ignored Hitler.

The analogy best suited would be the Roman Praetorians. Founded as an elite group to protect he Ceasar, they started their own political games and interest things and sometimes turned against and handed over the Ceasar to assassination (if not doing it themselves). They got corrupt several times during their existence. Ceasars needed to not ignore their interests.

The Iranian RG is not automatically loyal to the Iranian president, or the ordinary military.

moose1am
09-18-19, 08:25 PM
First Iran attacks the Saudi Oil Production facilities and now they capture another foreign oil tanker. This one was from the UAE and carrying diesel fuel for the UAE.

Iran will continue to escalate this into a war as they are hurting from the US sanctions.

Just as Japan got so desperate that they attacked Peal Harbor and then attacked and took over the Oil in SE Asia.

Iran too will be driven to war with these crippling USA sanctions on Iran.

CBS News reporting that the attack was carried out by Iran forces in Iraq and that the missiles flew through Kuwait Air space to SA. The USA and SA have the circuit boards from some of the missiles that can be reverse engineered to determine the flight path of the cruise missile, so we can see where they were launched from.

Trump will have to respond though or in conjunction with Saudi Arabia. It's about time we sent Iran a very clear message that this type of behavior will not Stand!

ikalugin
09-19-19, 03:26 AM
well, anyone who thinks Iran should be rewarded for its naked aggression by going back to the sweetheart 2015 nuclear deal is as naive as Neville Chamberlain at Munich in 1938.

Yes, the U.S. has to respond, but it has to be the right response.

Just blindly carrying out military strikes just plays into Iran's hands.

Iran attacking saudi Arabia is a major escalation.

Why would they do it? Iran seems to be goading the U.S. into a military response. It strikes me that the situation in Iran must be getting desparate and either the regime is losing control of certain factions or wants to provoke a war to shore up its internal support.

What the U.S. should be doing is following the Bush sr. model from 1990 and trying to build an international coalition with a common plan of action.

If the regime in Tehran is tottering, now is the time to ratchet up sanctions even more.
They have been firing ballistic missiles into KSA for years now and sunk one of their amphibious transport ships with an anti ship missile. You really should be aware of the context of this long proxy war.
As such I do not see why you view this as an actual escalation apart from the possible effect of being (mis)informed by US media.

In terms of why this has happened - US torpedoed yet another key arms control deal over dubious allegations of non compliance, possibly to support their KSA allies in this proxy war.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EExvfaTXYAAR2eZ?format=jpg&name=large
And US feels good about it.

Below, coverage of the patriot site radar and apparent direction the attack came from.
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/467371865225166879/624156734763827211/image.png
KSA was probably preparing against the ballistic missile threat from Yemen.

mapuc
09-19-19, 04:04 PM
I personally hope there are not going to be any war
I hope sanctions will be more than enough.

Markus

Onkel Neal
09-19-19, 09:07 PM
They have been firing ballistic missiles into KSA for years now and sunk one of their amphibious transport ships with an anti ship missile. You really should be aware of the context of this long proxy war.
As such I do not see why you view this as an actual escalation apart from the possible effect of being (mis)informed by US media.




Really? How often has someone knocked out 50% of their oil production? Is that a routine occurrence?

Catfish
09-20-19, 01:30 AM
re Ikalugin the patriot system probably would not have had a chance against low-flying missiles even if they would have covered the other sectors as well. I doubt that the russian system would have been more successful against extremely low-flying, terrain-following objects? :hmmm:

Mr Quatro
09-20-19, 04:00 AM
Come on man (ikalugin)
You are the only news agency reporting this theory :yep:

ikalugin
09-21-19, 08:11 PM
re Ikalugin the patriot system probably would not have had a chance against low-flying missiles even if they would have covered the other sectors as well. I doubt that the russian system would have been more successful against extremely low-flying, terrain-following objects? :hmmm:
We repell such attacks on our airbase in Latakia regularly, there are things you can do. But yes, it is not a trivial thing to do.



Really? How often has someone knocked out 50% of their oil production? Is that a routine occurrence?
No, in essense what is new is the result of the attack, not the nature or the scale.

Mr Quatro
09-22-19, 03:16 AM
In just three more days the general assembly of the U.N. Will meet to discuss the SA/Iran/Houthi Rebel attacks on SA oil field.

Already Iran and Yemen are crying peace, peace we want peace and to get away with our devastatingly deal at the same time.

So everyone stand down till the U.N. decides what to do in New York on Tuesday :hmmm:

Skybird
09-22-19, 05:08 AM
The UN should be packed in small boxes and sold in pharmacies as emetics. Its a highly potent agent.

Jimbuna
09-22-19, 06:43 AM
One thing the UN could do is legitimize a military response.

Skybird
09-22-19, 09:48 AM
From an Austrian (national, not economy-theoretical) blog: lessons that Europeans should learn from the non-reaction to the Iranian attack on Saudi Arabia, but refuse to learn, apparently.

https://translate.google.de/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.andreas-unterberger.at%2F2019%2F09%2Fwas-sterreich-aus-dem-angriff-auf-die-saudis-lernen-msste%2F


Strange: It was a massive military attack on Saudi Arabia, one of the USA's closest allies. The attack on the economic heart of the desert state has affected the global oil supply. There is absolutely no reasonable doubt about the guilty party behind the attack. And yet, as a result of such a heavy attack, no war breaks out - even though they have already broken out of much more lenient events. There is not even a retaliatory approach. Strange. What's going on there?
(...)
There are several Iranian motives for the attack:

Radical Iranian forces may have attempted to prevent the first - very tender - signs of a possible thaw between the US and Tehran leadership (notably the dismissal of the current US security adviser and the possibility of a meeting between the two presidents Signs have been evaluated).
Iran also needs a demonstration of its strength for domestic purposes.
Iran could at the same time want to show the Saudis how vulnerable they are despite their gigantic arms purchases.
Iran also wants to counter the American sanctions against its nuclear armaments plans with the answer: "With us, the opposite can be achieved with pressure, we can not bring us to our knees."

(...)
Why the US and Saudi Arabia are not yet against Iran:

Obviously, Iran is relatively well equipped to fight off attacks. Otherwise, Israel, which is more concerned about the aggressive mullahs than any other country, would have long since destroyed strategic or nuclear installations in Iran.
The Saudis and especially the Gulf States are very concerned about their own safety in the event of war.
In particular, the large Shiite minority in Saudi Arabia, which in the event of war is unlikely to remain peaceful, is threatened by terrorist, partisan and insurgency attacks.
Most important, however, is the rapidly growing isolationism in the US, which has reached its peak in Trump. Which is traditionally also found in many Democrats. Its core: "We have not been attacked, so this is primarily a problem of the Saudis
(...)

Trump has instead, as so often, announced new sanctions against Iran. But that is now an empty threat. Because against the Shiite state, all conceivable sanctions have long been imposed. And they still do not work. However, Trump's threats to the strength of the US armed forces are also now empty. They have been exposed as a bluff. Whenever threats are constantly voiced but never realized, nobody takes them seriously anymore.
The return of American isolationism, as it had prevailed before the First World War, the US's unwillingness today to take up arms for allies, can not be overestimated in their significance. It is a historic change in the postwar fundamental geopolitical parameters.
In Japan, Taiwan or South Korea, this has been attentively and anxiously registered. There one knows today: We can not rely on the USA anymore. Despite alliance agreements, we run the risk of being alone in the event of an attack. For today, the (former) ally obviously only applies: America First. And the rest does not matter.
(...)

It is high time that Europe realized that EU countries can no longer rely on the US for their security. They should desperately give up their illusions that one hardly needs a military anyway, that there are no longer armed conflicts, that old conflict lines will not break up again anyway. They should have learned that as well in the various bloody Yugoslav wars as in the face of the wars of the "Islamic State", the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists around the Mediterranean.
Moreover, there are completely new dangers: From the cyber wars, which can paralyze a whole country, to the exposure of the (energy and communication) infrastructure of a modern society to terrorism in various forms.
And there is one more thing one can learn from Saudi Arabia: how paralyzed and threatened by security is a country, if there is a minority in its territory that is unassimilently assimilated and who, for religious reasons, demonstratively rejects any integration. But even to say that, has been banned from the EU (for example, by the Verhetzungsparagraphen), Political Correctness and a partially ideologized judiciary. It could be thought forbidden thoughts.
But what is Europe doing instead of learning from it? To give just one very recent example, the EU majority is unwilling to accommodate Britain, even though the British are the only serious military force in Europe besides France. Therefore, we should definitely continue to integrate them. The European treatment of the British is not only economic, but also security political insanity.

Skybird
09-29-19, 05:43 PM
Houthis claim to have delivered another major serious blow to the Saudi military again, killing hundreds and capturing more, they claim to have destroyed "three Saudi brigades".

Their video evidence however is not conclusive. However it seems that some combat events happened that illustrated again a very poor Saudi performance.

The three brigades claim I do not take serious, since that would mean a major proportion of the Saudi military alltogether. Quick search on the web had me reading they formally maintain three armoured and five mechanised brigades.


It seems that the Saudi military has been systematically overrated and the options of the Yemeniti rebels being systematically underrated. Just maintaining the world's I think third or fourth highest military budget does not automatically make you a military superstar, it seems.

mapuc
09-29-19, 06:12 PM
Though more I read get information from this civil war in Yemen, though more convinced I get that those Houthi are nothing than a (keep on forgetting the word) for Iran.

Without Iran they would have been wiped out from start.

That this blow on Saudi was given by Iran(R.G.) and not Houthi in Yemen

That's what I believe.

Markus

August
09-29-19, 06:38 PM
Puppet, Client or Vassal might be the term you're looking for Markus.

Aktungbby
09-29-19, 07:59 PM
Puppet, Client or Vassal might be the term you're looking for Markus. 'proxy' actually...:O:

Jimbuna
09-30-19, 05:42 AM
This is the footage of what is claimed to be the attack on the Saudis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IdnLwCyV5w

Skybird
09-30-19, 07:17 AM
This is the footage of what is claimed to be the attack on the Saudis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IdnLwCyV5w
Yeah, saw that before. "Three brigades wiped out", I beleive it. "Thousands dead or captured". One thid of the mSaudi military taken out. Of course.



The interesting thing is what the reason is why the Houthis raise such claims, and did thnat before with the drone attacks on the refinery. The answer can only be: Iran. Yemen might have gotten underestimated before the war. Which ternalsates into: the amount of Iranian support for Yemen and beefing up its stand in Yemen is what has been underestimated.



Should ring some alarm bells.

Catfish
09-30-19, 07:39 AM
'proxy' actually...:O:
:D:up:

The bold allies come to liberate Yemen! (https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20190827-saad-al-faqih-bin-salman-wants-to-divide-yemen-and-honoured-khashoggis-assassins/)

mapuc
09-30-19, 11:33 AM
'proxy' actually...:O:

No not proxy more like puppet or vassal
(Thank you August)

I don't think this is a by proxy war I think R.G. is fighting Saudi and its allied right on-by using this group Houthi.

Markus

Platapus
09-30-19, 03:50 PM
A lot of groups, either terrorist or freedom fighters would be eliminated without support of their sponsor.

Mr Quatro
09-30-19, 04:38 PM
No proof, no links, but you know how gamers think right?

If this little battle that was reported by skybird yesterday


Houthis claim to have delivered another major serious blow to the Saudi military again, killing hundreds and capturing more, they claim to have destroyed "three Saudi brigades".

and it is already on youtube really happen.

Then what would prevent the Hourhis from having SA vehicles, communications, uniforms, weapons, from moving around inside SA (say up to the North) with Iran's missiles and drones and launching an attack from where ikalugin's map shows it was probably launched from and then disappearing into the next country over with a little help from Iran?

Seems no one can prove where they came from even Iran has taughted everyone with this very same thought.

or here's another thought what if the Saudi's did it themselves: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-security-oil-aramco-idUSKBN1WF1T0

FUJAIRAH, United Arab Emirates (Reuters) - Saudi Aramco has restored full oil production and capacity to the levels they were at before attacks on its facilities on Sept. 14, the chief executive officer of its trading arm, Ibrahim Al-Buainain, said on Monday.

Oil output capacity was restored on Sept. 25, he told a conference in the United Arab Emirates’ city of Fujairah. Oil production was restored to its pre-attack level of about 9.7 million barrels per day or even “a little higher” to replenish inventories

Sure got back together in a hurry while I pay 50 cents more for gas ...

Aktungbby
09-30-19, 05:04 PM
:D:up:

The bold allies come to liberate Yemen! (https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20190827-saad-al-faqih-bin-salman-wants-to-divide-yemen-and-honoured-khashoggis-assassins/)

No not proxy more like puppet or vassal
(Thank you August)

I don't think this is a by proxy war I think R.G. is fighting Saudi and its allied right on-by using this group Houthi.

MarkusI deign to agree Mapuc; a proxy war is fought by state or nonstate entities st the instigation of a party or parties which do not themselves participate visibly in the hostilities... The proxy war in the Middle East (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East) between Saudi Arabia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia) and Iran (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran) is another example of the destructive impact of proxy wars. This conflict has resulted in, among other things, the Syrian Civil War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War), the rise of ISIL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant), the current civil war in Yemen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemen), and the reemergence of the Taliban (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban). Since 2003, more than 800,000 have died in Iraq (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq) Since 2011, more than 220,000 have died in Syria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria). In Yemen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemen), over 1,000 have died in just one month.. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_war#cite_note-25) In Afghanistan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan), more than 17,000 have been killed since 2009. In Pakistan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan), more than 57,000 have been killed since 2003.

mapuc
09-30-19, 05:13 PM
It almost look like the story of Vietnam is repeating itself

In the beginning the US send instructors to train South Vietnam later US became more and more involved in the fighting

I think the same has happened in Yemen in the beginning those Houthi was trained and got weapons from Iran(R.G) and later R.G got more and more involved in the fighting.

Markus

Onkel Neal
10-11-19, 05:01 AM
oops
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/11/explosion-sets-ablaze-iranian-oil-tanker-near-saudi-port-state-media.html

Two missiles struck an Iranian tanker traveling through the Red Sea off the coast of Saudi Arabia on Friday, Iranian officials said, the latest incident in the region amid months of heightened tensions between Tehran and the U.S.

There was no word from Saudi Arabia on the reported attack and Saudi officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Oil prices spiked by 2% on the news.

Iranian state television said the explosion damaged two storerooms aboard the unnamed oil tanker and caused an oil leak into the Red Sea near the Saudi port city of Jiddah.

Catfish
10-11-19, 05:34 AM
oops [..]
Not much tears shed ..
However, maybe one of the next missiles (regardless where they come from) could accidentally hit Mr Bin Salman? :hmmm:

Jimbuna
10-11-19, 05:58 AM
Someone should tell CNBC the Saudi port city is called Jeddah and not Jiddah :)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-50011218

Mr Quatro
10-11-19, 06:08 AM
SA must not have wanted to sink the ship ...

Reported to be carrying one million gals of fuel :o

Skybird
10-11-19, 06:35 AM
I agree, it somewhat makes no sense to assume the Saudis would have an interets to threaten their own coat and port facilties with an oil pest.



Which makes it a possibole scenario that Iran again is behind this, to show the diversity of means by which it can strike.



Six tankers struck this year, this now is number seven.


However, if the tanker, as reported, was sailing black since two months and behaved suspiciously and switched on and off its localiser, maybe the Saudis finally had enough of it and decided to switch it "on" once and for all after it went live again before Suez.

Jimbuna
10-11-19, 08:17 AM
Or it was switched on to confirm to the rest of the world where the incident took place.

Mr Quatro
10-11-19, 11:49 AM
Required to have on due to navigation of Suez Canal :yep:

mapuc
10-11-19, 11:55 AM
More troops and equipment on its way to Saudi-Arabia

(I don't know if this is a trusted news paper)

The Pentagon will send 3,000 troops, including two squadrons of fighter jets, to Saudi Arabia as tensions increase with Iran.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/11/pentagon-3-000-troops-fighter-jets-counter-iran-saudi-arabia/3943543002/

Markus