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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/

Drone attack will probably prove not true ... more like a cruise missile with precision aiming.

https://specials-images.forbesimg.co...=0&cropY2=1356


https://www.forbes.com/sites/hisutto.../#500195123559

Somebody fired missiles nevertheless.



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.

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