The strike on the Saudi oil industry
Assuming Iran is indeed behind the attack on Saudi Arabia’s major oil refining facility, it represents a step-increase in Iranian-backed aggression in the region…
The prospect of a wider general war between Gulf states is hard to predict, but it is worth keeping in mind that global economic slowdowns in the past have often come after significant jumps in oil prices. With the European economy looking weak, and the U.S. media trying to talk our own economy into recession so as to defeat you-know-who, one can see yet another reason for Iran to favor destabilizing the region.
One must ask two important questions that I have asked previously: Why does Iran wish to be attacked especially by the United States? And more importantly, if there is a war, who is going to win?…
One reason Iran would like to embroil the U.S. in direct hostilities is that Iran wants to affect the election next year, and an actual shooting war will hurt Trump’s re-election chances.
Then, too, we should ask about the capabilities of Saudi Arabia. We have sold S.A. enormous quantities of weapons over the last 40 years, and, on paper at least, they ought to be perfectly capable of mounting a major military response on their own if they wish. However, it is less clear that they have in fact the operational competence. There is some reason to think S.A. buys weapons in much the same way the oil sheiks buy shiny sports cars—just to have them.
Seems plausible to me.
Many Arab states such as Saudi Arabia see Iran as their enemy, and vice versa. This has been going on for a long time. And although each contributes to terrorism in its own way—Iran by funding groups such as Hezbollah and the Saudis by funding the spread of Wahhabism—the Saudis are considered allies and Iran most definitely is not.
Iran seeks a fight. With the fight come higher prices . . . Hell, prices are up between 16.5% — 14.5% today already. So perhaps the Saudis are prudently refusing to give the Mullahs that which they seek? There are other means to harm the Mullahs, after all, are there not? No need to toss Brer Rabbit in the briar patch just yet.
}}} and an actual shooting war will hurt Trump’s re-election chances.
That’s a really really stupid claim. Presidents very rarely get changed out in the middle of a war, unless they are perceived as incompetently prosecuting it.
cf. Roosevelt and his 92-1/2 terms during WW2 — even though Roosevelt was literally dying, they still re-elected him for an unprecedented 4th term.
And I am not betting Trump will prosecute the war poorly.
Moreover, America prefers Republican Presidents in wartime, they’re generally stronger and much less waffley.
If Iran is doing this thinking it’ll be to their benefit, they are even stupider than Saddam was.
It’s hard to fined detailed facts, but Breitbart claims at least 19 different targets were struck and an anonymous US official said that “lots” of both drones and cruise missiles were used in the attack.
If true, this might be the first, or at least one of the few, time(s) that a massed drone attack has been used. Also, this brings to mind the fact (or high probability) that Iran hacked and captured one of our most sophisticated drones, the RQ-170 Sentinel, in 2011.
Although the Sentinel is much smaller than a normal air force bomber, it was purportedly designed to carry four bombs.
Some reporting (it’s early yet) indicates the bulk of the attack was by means of cruise missiles. Drones were ancillary if used at all.
sdferr, It would be logical to use one or two drones for bomb damage assessment, especially if they are stealthy and fly in at the tail end. One article claimed a civilian eyewitness to a single drone. (notoriously unreliable?)
It is obvious–OBVIOUS– that Iran did this. Houthis firing multiple cruise missiles? I don’t think so.
“an actual shooting war will hurt Trump’s re-election chances.” Perhaps, because the US is circling the drain anyway, and the public will not stand up for what is necessary. But does that mean that Trump should not act, just because the Democratic boll weevils, our societal termites, are hectoring him? That just furthers our national decay, putting those roaches into the Oval Office, in effect.
The real problem is that the appropriate response, to take out Iranian oil sites like a refinery or two will further reduce global petroleum product supply, raise prices, lower GDP in the US but especially in Europe, and give Russia an oil advantage in feeding Europe.
It might be better to seize tankers carrying Iranian crude on the high seas and off-load the crude for friendly nation refineries.
I’m just guessing, but I think that Iran’s mullahs believe that current sanctions are based on a fragile alliance between the United States and Europe. If they can tease the US into taking military action, the action will be limited, but sufficient to fracture the US/Europe alliance.
Without the Europeans, the sanctions will then collapse. An attack on the Saudi oil fields has the added benefit of raising the price of oil. Supplies decrease and fear is heightened. All in all, Iran sees this strategy as low risk and high reward.
Again, just guessing. Never been to Iran. Don’t know Farsi.
With Trump and Pompeo in charge, any war will be with an objective to win, and it won’t be started until key players are ready with a big plan. Key players are Israel, the Saudis, Egypt, the UK, and most of the smaller local Kingdoms.
Old Europe doesn’t have the military capability to do much of anything, and their positions won’t effect much of anything.
The Mullahs IMO are living in a world with little contact with reality. They are all Twelvers awaiting the Twelfth Imam. They are surrounded by their own warriors imbued with religious zeal, but who have never been actually tested. Their communications are probably totally compromised by US and Israeli Intelligence.
They live to destroy Israel and mistake placement of untold thousands of missiles surrounding it as having already won the war. They do want and expect war, the Twelver mindset allows no other objective. They think they will win and that the time is right.
If they collapsed, peace would break out in a way almost never before seen in that area. I think collapse is likely.
Collapse could see the Arab parts becoming autonomous, the Kurdish parts joining with Kurdistan, and the remainder a Persian country who would threaten no one for decades if ever. Iraq would settle down as the Iranian supported militias were left without funding.
The claim that a shooting war could hurt Trump comes from the isolationist crowd like Tucker Carlson or Ann Coulter. There are conservatives who would prefer we never go to war unless we are directly attacked. But I don’t think there numbers are such that they would hurt Trump’s chances for reelection – unless a ground war was declared. In which case who knows? It would be a game changer for sure because then it would become a campaign issue.
An actual ground war with Iran would be difficult on all counts. I sort of trust Trump when he says he doesn’t want a war. He has said he was opposed to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I guess he may not be opposed to air strikes and the like but those are can be a ramp up to war.
Roger Simon says, “Trump Must Punish the Mullahs Severely for Attack on Saudi Oil Fields”:
This absolutely should not mean putting American boots on the ground under any circumstances. It should be an air obliteration of anything associated with the mullahs and their Revolutionary Guard, including oil fields, ports, factories, military installations, and nuclear sites. Keep doing it until they scream. Leave the results for the Iranian people to sort out when we’re done.
It will be rough for them, of course, but on multiple occasions, the Iranians have shown great bravery in demonstrations against the mullahs. With the U.S. solidly and publicly behind regime change (not ignoring the people when they cry out to him the way Obama did), it should inspire the demonstrators to finish the job this time. You’re dreaming if you think Iran can change without regime change. Eventually, maybe soon, maybe now, they will have nuclear weapons. If they are willing to go after the Saudi oil fields with relatively conventional weapons, thumbing their noses at the world, think what they will do when they have nukes.
https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/trump-must-punish-the-mullahs-severely/
I take his point on what Iran might do when they have nukes. That was my ultimate reasoning on the Iraq War, but Iraq didn’t turn out so well and the US lost a lot of men and got blamed for everything.
Right now the US is the world’s top oil producer. Whatever happens in Saudi Arabia or Iran will not affect us nearly so much as the rest of the world. I would rather like Europeans and the Saudis to do some hard thinking this time.
One thing the Iranians accomplished. They got Ron Paul back on TV.
Some photos show small holes in some tanks in Saudi. Too small to be cruise missiles. Maybe both.
I say use this as an opportunity to destroy every one of their nuclear sites.
We should wait for the fog of war to clear. I doubt SA has the expertise to take on Iran. IMO the best course of action where Iran is concerned is to block the Straits of Hormuz. If Iran responds with force, bomb all strategic targets until the rubble is turned into fine sand.
IMO the best course of action where Iran is concerned is to block the Straits of Hormuz.
The trouble is that most options would affect the price of oil, which is of course the aim of the Iranians. It may be possible to identify the sites from which the cruise missiles and drones were launched and destroy them. Quietly, if possible.
“on paper at least, they ought to be perfectly capable of mounting a major military response on their own if they wish. However, it is less clear that they have in fact the operational competence. ”
But the US has air assets and the operational expertise in that area that could work as command and control for the air assets of SA. I’d be surprised if training in the SA air assets did not involve a lot of co-ordination with US command and control centers on the ground, sea, and air.
Mike K,
Iran exports oil through the Straits of Hormuz. Control the straits and the mullahs are then in a difficult position. A mass drain on their economy or they can risk a hot war with the USA. They may be radical, but they are not stupid.
Iran can’t sell oil on the open market today due to US banking sanctions looming on any purchasing participant. So they sell what little they can — which is no where near enough to sustains their needs — in a black market or in dribs to the likes of Syria, which is already shut out of the international banking regime. Closing the strait is what Iran wants but cannot do itself. So that’s a nonstarter, as well as unnecessary to the purpose.
If you want to make Iran howl destroy their electric power infrastructure.
In any modern country, like the USA, there are a limited number of key transformer sites serving each large metropolitan areas. They could be knocked out by cruise missiles. Replacing them, especially a LARGE number of them is … difficult.
Sure, their military sites have local generators.
But if millions of homes and businesses have no electricity the country will grind to a halt.
When some say Trump will automatically lose popularity if there is war, one imagines they are picturing anti-war demonstrations with thousands out in the streets. To excite anti-war indignation, there need to be visuals of women and children being injured and killed by bombs. Tactics on both sides have become more sophisticated. We’ll see.
The mullahs are playing to the Copperhead democrats. Violence gins up the counter-reaction, blame America, give the 20+ midgets more points to criticize for his simultaneous imperialism and fecklessness. Same old stirring the pot.
It’s now clear that it was treason for barry to ignore the Green Revolution.
https://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/
Monday, September 16, 2019
Drones and a New Age of Economic Terrorism
Thoughts from a maritime perspective (US Navy that is).
“Closing the strait is what Iran wants but can not do by itself. So that’s a nonstarter…” How so? Iran also imports via the Strait. It seems like a ‘duh’ to me.
Block the straits, declare Iranian airspace a no fly zone. Be prepared to back it up in spades. The regime might last 6 months. Hungry people are a friend not to be dismissed lightly. Seige is an effective tactic throughout the ages. One must be ruthless or hike up their panties and go home.
Ith
Time to be the great Satan even if it is 4 decades too late. The mullahs should have felt the boot on their neck when they stormed our embassy and took our people hostage for 444 days. Better late than never.
History doesn’t bend in a progressive arc. It does provide a serious lesson. Weakness is rewarded with agression. Strenght is rewarded with fear of one’s enemies. Yes, it is that simple.
Ah well, Obama’s allies in Teheran seem to be stirring the pot again. As though they’ve ever stopped….
And elections in Israel today. Just a reminder to “the Little Satan” perhaps?
And/or perhaps a reminder to M. Macron and those other high-minded (if utterly confused) “In-Iran-We-Trust”, “Take-THAT-Trump”, “Take-THAT-Bibi”, Euro-foreign-policy-genii….
(And Kerry’s been pretty quiet of late. Wonder what he’s up to?…. The last time he went to ground, for several good weeks, we got—presto!—UN Resolution 2334….)
As for relying on Saudi Arabia, the only thing they’re really good at is spreading Wahabbism and greasing wheels. Playing both ends toward the middle. Bribery ‘R Us. To perfection. Other than that, one really ought to think twice before relying on anything they say. (Oh, but when they need, don’t worry, they’ll call!)
Ah well, Obama’s allies in Teheran seem to be raising a ruckus in the sandbox again. (As though they’ve ever stopped….)
And elections in Israel today. Just a reminder to “the Little Satan” perhaps?
And/or perhaps a reminder to M. Macron and those other high-minded (if utterly confused) “In-Iran-We-Trust”, “Take-THAT-Trump”, “Take-THAT-Bibi”, Euro-foreign-policy-genii….
(And Kerry’s been pretty quiet of late. Wonder what he’s up to?…. The last time he went to ground, for several good weeks, we got—presto!—UN Resolution 2334….)
As for relying on Saudi Arabia, the only thing they’re really good at is spreading Wahabbism and greasing wheels. Playing both ends toward the middle. Bribery ‘R Us. To perfection. Other than that, one really ought to think twice before relying on anything they say. (Oh, but when they need you, don’t worry, they’ll call!)
“If there is a war,” – Steven Hayward
I would think that bombing a country’s homeland constitutes an act of war by anyone’s calculus. The Houthis may have been the designated fall guy, since they are already at war with the Saudis, but it looks like Iran’s straw perpetrator game didn’t work.
The US does not have to declare war on Iran, or launch any missiles, or block the Straits. All they have to do is support the Saudis with money and materiel.
And there is no need to do it quietly.
In foreign affrays involving countries at war, I tend to agree more with parker.
Never hit first; always hit back.
Deep analysis by J E Dyer
https://libertyunyielding.com/2019/09/16/iran-saudi-arabia-lebanon-mullahs-and-donald-trump-are-both-inside-our-ooda-loop/
Thoughts on SA military readiness and resolve: remember that the government is now effectively being run by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, not the old king & his men, and Trump has been careful not to antagonize the prince, as we saw in the Khashoggi affair.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/10/khashoggi_a_political_murder_or_a_convenient_excuse.html
(I don’t buy most of the author’s speculations about MBS’s complicity or lack thereof in the murder, but his points about congruent national interests hold up.)
Trump should let the Saudis lead in any military response, including the Saudi-Iran proxy war in Yemen.
Neither side favors market capitalism and human rights including freedom of religion, plus democracy. SA fighting in Yemen, as also for Iranians, is helping them learn how to fight more effectively.
Seems unlikely to be a huge escalation by SA against Iran, but likely a fine excuse by SA to buy a LOT more US weapons, as well as to further increase their oil production. It also helps the US make a stronger case for continued, or increased, sanctions on Iran.
It should help Bibi & the stronger defense faction in the Israeli elections — which makes the Iranian mullahs particularly stupid on the timing. Which makes me wonder if it really WAS the Iranians, rather than their proxies.
Bigger demand for better defensive placements.
Hope the Iranian people can enjoy a regime change and more human rights sooner, but also hope it’s not Trump that leads to any war. Supporting some “allies”, like SA, may be sufficient.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/elections << good coalition building list, with about 32% support both for and against Bibi Netanyhu, and many other parties (threshold is 3%?) for 120 seats, 61 needed for majority.
Remember the Iranian people are not the enemy. Responses to the attack that harm them, like taking out the electrical gird, are probably not the best policy. Taking out the military sites and their nuke program are better, if it can be done.
As far as doing something to close the straits, the Joint Chiefs wanted Carter to take out Kharg Island when they took the hostages in 1979 but he declined. I don’t know if they have more oil platforms now but that might be an option that does not affect other oil exporters.
The mullahs seem to think that with Bolton gone, Jimmy Carter, Rand Paul or Tucker Carlson is now in charge of our foreign policy. They’ve now opened themselves up to an attack on their oil and nuclear facilities, and probably gotten Bibi reelected. This strikes me as one of those famous last words, “Go ahead, pull the trigger! You haven’t got the guts!”
Tom & Richard: the timing, indeed, was very poor WRT the Israeli elections.
Other famous phrases that are relevant: “Go ahead. Make my day.”
Mike K: I was not following news except in a very general way in 1979 and wasn’t aware of the Kharg Island option, but Carter should have listened to his Chiefs; it might have saved us (and the rest of the world) a lot of grief over the years had Iran & the Middle East in general known that hitting the USA was not a cost-free action.
I said this on a Facebook posting on this subject: If we are going to war with Iran, then the sooner the better. As David Goldman has pointed out, an inevitable war gets worse the longer you postpone it. If a European war had started in 1911, or France and England had immediately attacked Hitler after he occupied the Rhineland the two catastrophes of the West in the 20th century might not have taken place. A war with Iran now would be unpleasant; a war with it in a couple of years would be very nasty, but a war with Iran after five years would probably include a nuclear exchange.
Omri Ceren Twitter, commenting on
a Sara Cook thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/omriceren/status/1174098345373122561
Sara Cook thread:
https://mobile.twitter.com/saraecook/status/1173978840856743936
Are we, indeed—whether we want to be or not—effectively the “policeman of the world?”
Does someone need to punish the Iranians for their apparent attack on Saudi oil fields?
Should the U.S. just let this attack slide, say “it’s not our business,” turn our heads away, and hope that this is the last time that the Iranian regime will do such a thing?
It would, indeed, be nice if—a la Tucker Carson—the U.S. had no reason to be involved overseas and, moreover, in multiple conflicts “over there.”
But, we happen to be in a position in the world right now—one, I’d imagine, not really actively sought (on the outside looking in, it appears that, overall, it ain’t that great, its a pain in the ass, nonstop jetting from pillar to post around the world to “consult”)—where we do have all sorts of alliances, interests, and entanglements with the outside world, and they have to be maintained, cultivated, and protected.
The days are long past when—say, beginning about the time of WWII—we could just retreat behind the vast oceans, and become “Fortress America”; we are too integrated with, “enmeshed” and “entangled” with the world and, in terms of economics, have to be, to sustain and grow our economy and society.
Moreover, at this particular moment in time, we are the only ones who possibly have the will, and have the military capabilities to do what is necessary to punish the Iranians for their actions, by either facilitating an attack by, say, the Saudis themselves, perhaps by the Israelis, or, we could just attack Iran by ourselves.
The problem here is that—given the multiple lessons of this kind of situation from history—if we don’t punish and attempt to stop Iranian aggression, now that it is so consequential and overt, it will only grow.
Iran, we might remember, is the world’s foremost sponsor of terrorism, is responsible for the deaths of many hundreds of U.S. soldiers, to judge by their constant cries of “death to America” and their threats, is our mortal enemy, and is rapidly acquiring game-changing nuclear weapons capability.
Iran, because of its coastline along the Straits of Hormuz—and including its narrowest portion, at that—is in a position to be able to attempt to shut down the Straits—in places a very narrow and constricted sea lane and choke point—which is the transit point for a good portion of the world’s commerce. (While the Straits, at their narrowest section, are 21 nautical miles wide, it appears that the actual shipping lanes, having sufficient depth for oil tankers, consist of only two channels, each only two miles wide.)
The Iranians have already attacked, or boarded and captured ships in the area.
If unpunished over their presumed attack against Saudi oil fields, would their often threatened attempt at shutting down the Straits be the Iranian’s next major escalation?
Such a major escalation would be one that could not go unchallenged and unpunished, since such a shut down of the Straits—especially if lengthy—would have a major and harmful impact on the commerce of a good portion of the world.
Why not head off such a possible escalation now, when to do so would likely cost a lot less than if the Straits were the battlefield?
Mark Dubowitz, Washington Examiner: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/stand-up-to-irans-oil-market-terrorism
https://strategypage.com/on_point/20190917211551.aspx
On Point: Proxies and Proximity: Iranian Drone Attacks on Saudi Oil
by Austin Bay
September 17, 2019
A detaild after-action pot could be telling. Oil fires are not unusual therefore big storage tanks are usually surrounded by walls and berms. If the damage is concentrated on pipes, valves, and pumps, that suggestes an “inside job”.
Eastern Saudi Aabia has a large Shiite population that was over whelmed by the Saudis over a century ago. Also, C-Prince MbS is condcting a rather intense inta-family version of regime change, so there is no shortage of potential enemies on the playing field. A “hand-delived” RPG warehead could do serious damage to an oil transportation system. Iran may be playing along or be totally “innocent”, and the drones/missiles just a cover story.
What ever, this has the potential of getting real ugly.
“pot” = report. Cheap keyboard!
Happened to see Hawaii’s pacifistic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard this evening on Fox’s show The Story, as she gave her opinion about President Trump’s consideration of military action against Iran, in retaliation for their apparent major attack against the Saudi’s oil fields.
She said that any such action by President Trump would be “pimping out” U.S. troops in aid of the interests of an unworthy supposed “Ally,” whose massive funding for the preaching of hard-line Wahabi fundamentalism around the world has encouraged terrorism.
First of all, I am sick and tired of Gabbard almost always prefacing what she says on any military or foreign policy issue by referring to “her military brothers and sisters.” I am aware that Gabbard served in the military, and served two tours in war zones.
But, does such service make her a military and foreign policy expert? I wonder?
Next, using such language as “pimped out” is just plain over the line.
Was Roosevelt “pimping out our military forces” when he sent our troops over to England and to Europe to fight the Nazi’s? Was Reagan “pimping out” our military forces when he sent them to Grenada? Are all of our forces in, say, South Korea, or Germany just “pimped out.” Are our military forces basically just mercenaries, there to do the will of the highest bidder?
Gabbard says that her harsh, over the top criticism of President Trump even considering the use of military force against Iran is the consistent with her oath as a solider and as a member fo Congress to protect and defend the Constitution.
But is it?
Last time I looked, it was the President which our Constitution give the role of Commander in Chief, who has the duty and responsibility to decide whether, when, and where to commit U.S. military forces and to what purpose, not Congresswoman Gabbard.
By the way, what is Gabbard’s great solution to this major provocation by Iran?
Why, it’s to lift the sanctions that we have imposed and gradually strengthened as a reaction to a series of hostile and aggressive actions by Iran, and for the U.S. to re-institute and to abide by the catastrophically bad Iran nuclear deal.
One commenter saw this as her desperate ploy to grab some headlines and attention, in an effort to reignite her failing bid to be the Democrat nominee, and I think he might be right.
So Gabbard is recommending the US should surrender to Iran. Just as President Pseudonym wanted. Figures. Strategic geniuses, those two.
Perhaps it’s time the Sauds start investing in nukes. The Turks and Egyptians can follow them. Throw a party, kids! Have an atomic keger.
Lee Smith, The Tablet: “Team Iran”
Link: https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/291550/team-iran