Saudi oil fields on fire, but who did it?

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by mapuc

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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/hisutto.../#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]

Originally Posted by Platapus

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]

[Jimbuna]

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...tions-11810252

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