Saudi oil fields on fire, but who did it?

[Julhelm]

The closest analogue to the Revolutionary Guard would be the SS.

[Skybird]

^ 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]

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]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

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.

And US feels good about it.

Below, coverage of the patriot site radar and apparent direction the attack came from.

KSA was probably preparing against the ballistic missile threat from Yemen.

[mapuc]

I personally hope there are not going to be any war
I hope sanctions will be more than enough.

Markus

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

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]

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?

[Mr Quatro]

Come on man (ikalugin)
You are the only news agency reporting this theory

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Catfish

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

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]

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

[Skybird]

The UN should be packed in small boxes and sold in pharmacies as emetics. Its a highly potent agent.

[Jimbuna]

One thing the UN could do is legitimize a military response.

[Skybird]

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/translat...ernen-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:

1. 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).
2. Iran also needs a demonstration of its strength for domestic purposes.
3. Iran could at the same time want to show the Saudis how vulnerable they are despite their gigantic arms purchases.
4. 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:

1. 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.
2. The Saudis and especially the Gulf States are very concerned about their own safety in the event of war.
3. 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.
4. 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
5. (...)

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]

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]

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