The US has reportedly traced the cruise missiles used during a weekend attack that crippled half of Saudi Aramco's oil production back to their point of origin: Iran. Or at least that's what one US official is telling CBS News.
Many have argued that there's zero upside for Iran in carrying out attacks like this (the region has also endured several attacks on oil tankers that have been blamed on Iran), but the US has insisted that Tehran was responsible for the attack, and that the missiles used were beyond the sophistication of Yemen's Houthis, who had initially taken credit for the attacks.
Senior US officials have told CBS they've identified the locations in Iran from which a combination of more than 20 drones and cruise missiles were launched against the Saudi oil facilities. They say the locations are in southern Iran at the northern end of the Persian Gulf.
— Paul Danahar (@pdanahar) September 17, 2019
According to US sources, 17 missiles or drones were fired, not the 10 the Houthis claim. Cruise missiles may have been used, and some targets were hit on the west-northwest facing sides, which suggests the projectiles were fired from the north, from Iran or Iraq.
Investigators have reportedly identified the exact location, purportedly in southern Iran, where a combination of more than 20 drones and cruise missiles were launched against the Saudi oil facilities.
Additionally, The Wall Street Journal reports that Saudi Arabia is increasingly confident that Iran directly launched a complex missile and drone attack from its southern territory on Saturday that battered the kingdom's oil industry, according to people familiar with the investigation.
"Everything points to them," said a Saudi official who wasn't authorized to speak to the media, referring to Iran.
"The debris, the intel and the points of impact."
When President Trump fired National Security Adviser John Bolton last week rational people the world over cheered.
When there was news that Trump would meet on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly in a few weeks there were sighs of relief.
When Benjamin Netanyahu goes to Moscow to get Vladimir Putin’s blessing to continue airstrikes in Syria was told no, the world said, “Finally! Enough is enough.”
The problem is that there were also very powerful people who were not happy about these things.
Moreover, there are a lot of nervous people out there worried that Tuesday’s election in Israel will not go the way they want it.
And this brings up the main question I always have in the wake of one of these major escalations of tensions with the country currently catching the Twin Eyes of Sauron in D.C. and Tel Aviv.
Why do they always seem to occur right after moments of de-escalation and there’s the threat of peace breaking out somewhere?
Why is it that every time President Trump tries to push the U.S. and the world away from war within a few days there’s an incident which pushes us right back to the brink of it?
Trump visits Kim Jong-un in North Korea, making history, there are attacks on UAE oil tankers. Trump refuses to attack Iran over them shooting down a Global Hawk drone in Iranian airspace escorted by a fully-crewed Poseiden P-8.
Britain seizes the Grace 1 oil tanker. Israel attacks Shi’ite Militia targets outside of Baghdad.
Go back to President Trump first, and biggest, geopolitical blunder. The Syrian Army wins a major battle and is on the verge of victory, and a chemical weapons attack happens deep in Al-Qaeda controlled territory blamed on the SAA.
Trump then launches 57 tomahawks at the Al-Shairat airbase.
Trump declares we’re pulling out of Syria, Israel openly bombs targets deep in Syria. His staff, including John Bolton, freak out and walk it back.
The Houthis send a couple of drones at an Aramco facility far beyond their known capabilities and the UAE pulls out of the Saudi coalition in Yemen.
The very fact that we have been shown zero proof of what happened more than 48 hours after the event which has every neocon in the U.S. clamoring for war is your biggest tell that there is something very off about this incident.
Even President Trump doesn’t believe this as he is taking the same tack rhetorically now that he did after the U.S. Global Hawk drone was shot down.
We’ve gone from:
Saudi Arabia oil supply was attacked. There is reason to believe that we know the culprit, are locked and loaded depending on verification, but are waiting to hear from the Kingdom as to who they believe was the cause of this attack, and under what terms we would proceed!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 15, 2019
To
“I don’t want to have war with anybody” but our military is prepared, Trump says at the White House, where he was meeting with Bahrain Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa. Furthermore, the president said the US is not looking at retaliatory options until he has “definitive proof” that Iran was responsible for attacks on Saudi Arabian oil facilities.Still, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office that the US “is prepared” if the attacks warrant a response.Also notably, when asked if he has promised to protect the Saudis, the president responded “No, I haven’t promised the Saudis that… We have to sit down with the Saudis and work something out.”
Moreover, the stunning lack of support from Europe and the rest of the world makes it incredibly suspect that the story that we’ve been told to date, just like with the Global Hawk drone, is anything close to the real one.
And it seems Trump may believe that as well.
In the end, as always, we should be asking the most salient question surrounding this attack.
Cui Bono? (Who Benefits?)
“Iran has launched an unprecedented attack on the world’s energy supply,” declared Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
Putting America’s credibility on the line, Pompeo accused Iran of carrying out the devastating attack on Saudi oil facilities that halted half of the kingdom’s oil production, 5.7 million barrels a day.
On Sunday, President Donald Trump did not identify Iran as the attacking nation, but did appear, in a tweet, to back up the secretary of state:
“There is reason to believe that we know the culprit, are locked and loaded depending on verification, but are waiting to hear from the Kingdom (of Saudi Arabia) as to who they believe was the cause of this attack and under what terms we would proceed!”
Yemen’s Houthi rebels, who have been fighting Saudi Arabia for four years and have used drones to strike Saudi airport and oil facilities, claim they fired 10 drones from 500 kilometers away to carry out the strikes in retaliation for Saudi air and missile attacks.
Pompeo dismissed their claim, “There is no evidence the attacks came from Yemen.”
But while the Houthis claim credit, Iran denies all responsibility.
Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif says of Pompeo’s charge, that the U.S. has simply replaced a policy of “maximum pressure” with a policy of “maximum deceit.” Tehran is calling us liars.
And, indeed, a direct assault on Saudi Arabia by Iran, a Pearl Harbor-type surprise attack on the Saudis’ crucial oil production facility, would be an act of war requiring Saudi retaliation, leading to a Persian Gulf war in which the United States could be forced to participate.
If a dozen drones or missiles can do the kind of damage to the world economy as did those fired on Saturday — shutting down about 6% of world oil production — imagine what a U.S.-Iran-Saudi war would do to the world economy.
In recent decades, the U.S. has sold the Saudis hundreds of billions of dollars of military equipment. Did our weapons sales carry a guarantee that we will also come and fight alongside the kingdom if it gets into a war with its neighbors?
Before Trump orders any strike on Iran, would he go to Congress for authorization for his act of war?
Sen. Lindsey Graham is already urging an attack on Iran’s oil refineries to “break the regime’s back,” while Sen. Rand Paul contends that “there’s no reason the superpower of the United States needs to be getting into bombing mainland Iran.”
Divided again: The War Party is giddy with excitement over the prospect of war with Iran, while the nation does not want another war.
How we avoid it, however, is becoming difficult to see.
John Bolton may be gone from the West Wing, but his soul is marching on.
No comments:
Post a Comment