Two Saudi oil tankers, Norwegian ship apparently attacked near the Persian Gulf amid rising Iran tensions
The location is near a sea lane critical to the world’s supply of oil, and the incidents followed a warning by U.S. maritime authorities that Iran might seek to disrupt commercial shipping in the area.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Source: World Atlas
Two Saudi Arabian oil tankers and a Norwegian ship were damaged over the weekend near the Persian Gulf in what Saudi Arabia claimed Monday was an “act of sabotage,” further heightening regional tensions with Iran.
The location is near a sea lane critical to the world’s supply of oil, and the incidents followed a warning by U.S. maritime authorities that Iran might seek to disrupt commercial shipping in the area.
Tags
Who is online
98 visitors
The location is near a sea lane critical to the world’s supply of oil
Indeed.
From Wikipedia:
The Strait of Hormuz is a strait between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. It provides the only sea passage from the Persian Gulf to the open ocean and is one of the world's most strategically important choke points.
On the north coast lies Iran, and on the south coast the United Arab Emirates and Musandam, an exclave of Oman. At its narrowest, the strait has a width of 21 nautical miles.
A third of the world’s liquefied natural gas and almost 20% of total global oil production passes through the strait, making it a highly important strategic location for international trade.
Two things seem obvious:
1. Blocking this narrow waterway would wreak havoc on the world economy (if all that oil and gas couldn't reach the rest of the world, energy prices would sjyriocket and economies would crash...
2. Since the Strait is only 21 miles wide, it might be relatively easy to block it-- at least for a while. Or-- even if open, it might be easy to make passage relatively dangerous.
Two Saudi Arabian oil tankers and a Norwegian ship were damaged over the weekend near the Persian Gulf in what Saudi Arabia claimed Monday was an “act of sabotage,” further heightening regional tensions with Iran.
I do not believe Iran is in a great hurry to go to war with the US, the Iranians may be many things but stupid is generally not one of them.
Not that I subscribe to conspiracy theories, but it would not surprise me if this was found to be the act of third party attempting to light that fuse.
Although once John Bolton was dragged out of the dustbin of history, this crisis was inevitable.
Hopefully not another ''Gulf of Tonkin'' incident.
Hopefully not another ''Gulf of Tonkin'' incident.
I think sentiment in the U.S. has undergone a major shift since the War on Iraq. Initially that war had a lot of support amongst Americans (because we were lied to-- many Americans, including many Democrats, actually believed Saddam had WMDs).
Even after the war, (when no WMDs were found even after many thorough searches by American occupying forces) many Americans still felt the war was justified.
But IMO over time sentiment has shifted. More and more Americans realize that so many have been killed-- or maimed for life. And to what end? (Ironically, in the last election-- even the Republican candidate for president-- Donald Trump-- bashed the Iraq war!)
Trump:
We should have never been in Iraq!
They lied...there were no weapons of mass destruction!
That always struck me as ironic-- coming from a Republican!
Trump isn't a Republican, how many times does that need to be repeated?
Trump is the same as Bernie Sanders. Sanders may have run for POTUS as a Democrat- but he is no Democrat.
Iraq- like all of recent military adventures into nation building has been a complete and utter disaster. It doesn't matter who is POTUS, or from which party, when it comes to nation building the US sucks.
Trump needs to deflect attention from his policy debacles at home and nothing, looks better to conservatives than to starting a war. How many times was Trump opposed to military actions in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan before he supported them?
How many lives and how many hundreds of billions will this debacle cost us?
Can't believe this is happening again so soon after Iraq. I wouldn't be surprised if Bibi sent Mossad to do something. He admittedly manipulates Trump and this is right up his alley.
Then how do you account for the fact that Trump was ready to withdraw American forces from Syria-- but stopped only after pressure from various Americans?
(A complete withdrawal from Syria would have resulted in a tremendous bloodbath of the Kurds...)
I won't even try to account for anything Trump does and doesn't do. He tweets some bullshit and when the fallout begins the gop scramble to mitigate the damage and Trumpsplain what he 'really means'. In the case of Syria our military sounded the alarms about knee-jerk withdrawal, rightfully so. Nothing to do with this current impending clash with Iran. From Pat bloody Buchanan:
And you problems with that? Why?
It's good for Israel, and it's good for the US.
Yes, I have a problem with that. I don't think it was done for any constructive reason helpful to the US and it's (former) role in the world.
Trump hasn't been nearly as bad war wise as our past presidents; but I do have a bone to pick with him on buckling to the military and hawks. We have no business in Syria. Never did. The wet dream of Obama and Hillary to replace Assad with a pro US/Western government will never happen. That book was closed the second Russia, China, and Iran entered on the Syrian government's side.
The main reason for being in Syria is gone. ISIS/ISIL is no longer a threat to Syria; not that Bush Jr and Obama didn't work damn hard to make it into one. Outside of protecting the Kurds, sorry- they are citizens of Syria whether we like it or not- and are smart enough to already be negotiating the with Russians and Syrian government.
As for Iraq- seems Trump is stuck on stupid- following the path of Bush Jr and Obama. Why are we propping up a government that is loyal to Iran, and doesn't represent two major minorities within the country?
Keeping US troops in close proximity to Iran forces in Syria, and Iranian militias in Iraq, is a recipe for disaster.
Don't worry, Trump can tweet to his heart's content. The reality is the US is on the same crash course for disaster it always was. It is not if war will occur, but when.
We have absolutely NO business in the Middle East - NONE.
Agreed. Too much American blood has been spilled in that sand pit, and for little if no gain.
Some lessons are not learned I suppose. After a thousand years or so of attempting to calculate how the Middle East functions, we continue to apply the same failed methodology and have seemingly learned nothing in the process.
They peer through at different lens than we do, until that is at least acknowledged we will continue to spin our wheels.
It seems that there are always a few crazies in governments on both sides of a conflict that want their governments to launch a "pre-emptive strike' on their enemies. I remember the "cold War'-- there were a few nutty generals, both American and Russian, who wanted to start a nuclear war. Fortunately more moderate leaders on both sides were able to keep them in check.
I think you're right-- Bolton woiuld love to have us start a war with iran. Trump, however, has turned out to be quite the "dove".
And obviously the Iranians (well, those in charge) don't want to start a war with the U.S...that would be suicidal.
However, Iran likes to have its proxies involved in wars-- remember, they are already supporting one side in a horrendous war in Yemen, and are backing the Lebanese Shia terror group Hezb'Allah as well as Hamas in Gaza.
Yes I agree, but (here it comes) that is a two way avenue, are we a proxy of Israel and the Saudis or are they ours?
I have said it before, the only cure for the Middle East is the Middle East. If they want a war, then they can have one, sans the US.
Have you ever considered the possibility that perhaps-- it might be neither?
That nations often act in what they perceive to be their own self interest? And that sometimes certain actions may benefit two particular countries , so they support those actions. And then conspiracy theorists can say:
Aha! That proves that on of those countries is controlling the other"!
For example, during WWII. Was britain controlling the bactions of the U.S.? Did Britain "have the U.S. in their pocket"?
Or-- was the U.S. pulling the string on Britain-- a U.S. puppet?
(Or perhaps it wasn't some sort of nefarious plot-- but rather we had a free choice-- acted together because we had a common interest? i.e. defeating the Axis powers).
Speaking of proxy wars, my hubs said the other day to watch out for Venezuela... he thinks we are already in a proxy war with the Russians in that country. AND he said how is "kinda funny how the proxy wars always happen in oil rich countries." I don't think he's wrong.
He might be right.
Someone once said that the worst thing that could happen to an impoverished third world country is for them to discover oil.
Food for thought...
Was is John Bolton who damaged those ships? Did he cause it to happen, and if so, how?
From the beginning, I assumed that Iran apologists would claim this was a false flag, despite the absence of any evidence. I was not disappointed.
There's a block here always willing to attack America first and worry about facts later.
Saudi Arabia Says Drones Hit Oil Pipeline, After Reports of Tanker Attacks
Are these the same Saudis that claimed Khashoggi slipped on a banana peel?
I believe we should wait a bit for a credible claim. Sorry Kavika I have become, shall we say a bit jaded of late.
I should have made my point much clearer. I don't trust a thing that the Saudis say or claim. There is a quote in the article by a Saudi Aramco exec that it could be the Houthais...Of course they are supported by Iran.
The dots all lead back to Iran and since Saudi and Iran are mortal enemies it would behoove the Saudi's to claim that Iran did this. It might be that they are trying to be sure that the US gets involved in this mess.
In Islam, there is a traditional practice called taquiyya:
Yarden Mariuma, sociologist at Columbia University, writes: "Taqiyya is an Islamic juridical term whose shifting meaning relates to when a Muslim is allowed, under Sharia law, to lie.
However, that being said, its important to realize that the age old hatreds between the two main branches of islam (Sunni and Shia) is now playing out on a large scale in the conflict between the Saudis and their Sunni allies (particularly other Arab Gulf states) and the Shia (mainly Iran but also various terror groups it supports such as Hezb'Allah from Lebanon and the Shia Houthis who are currently involved in a horrendously sadistic war against the Saudi supported (Sunni) government in Yemen. (Yemen is on Saudi's border).
I totally agree.
I'm pretty sure the Iranians themselves would not directly attack the Saudis (or that matter, the Israelis). However radical Shia terror groups supported by Iran certainly would-- and have.
On numerous occasions.
And BTW, if this was an attack by Iranian-supported Houthi terrorists (not by Iran itself but by the iranian-armed terror group they support) if wouldn't be the first time.
In fact there's quite a history of attacks by Houthis on Saudis and vice-versa (these are just the first few entries, started in 2015-- the entire article is HERE):
Timeline
2015
As a result of the Saudi invasion of Yemen. The city of Najran was shelled by the Houthis on 5 May 2015, Saudi authorities temporarily closed local educational institutions and the airport. [19]
Ahrar al-Najran fighters attacked a military base in Najran on 9 July 2015, seizing a number of weapons and electronic equipment belonging to Saudi Arabia's security services, and destroying an armored vehicle and a mortar-launching vehicle, both belonging to the Saudi Army. 2 Ahrar al-Najran fighters and 15 Saudi soldiers were killed in the clashes. [20]
2016 [ edit ]
Maybe the Mossad has the answer, or at least the ability to find it. Oh wait, there are members here who feel that all the Mossad does is spread false news.
Ah yes, Taqiyya - the reason why Iran is so naively believed when it does its own nuclear inspections of its military sites.
Not so@ Let's give credit where credit is due. After all, it was the Mossad who attacked the WTC on 911!
(Ok that was meant as sarcasm. But strange as it may seem, large numbersof people -- perhaps the majority-- in Arab countries actually believe that).
Ssshhh! There are members of NT who probably believe that as well, considering some of the things they post here.
Saudi Arabia Says Drones Hit Oil Pipeline, After Reports of Tanker Attacks
I can believe this.
IMO the Iranians don't want to fight a war-- certainly not one involving Iranian troops, or any significant attacks on their homeland. And despite their inflammatory rhetoric (as well as the inflammatory rhetoric from the current Israeli governments) neither of those two countries wantsto get into an actual war with the other.
However, what the current iranian government is doing is engaging in war by proxy.
A friend of mine just returned from the Middle East-- he was there "on business". Lebanon and... Saudi Arabia. He made it clear that he would not welcome questions about what sort of "business" he was involved in...
However, I asked him what those two countries were like. Among other things he mentioned that Saudi Arabia was much more modern than many Americans realize-- and that advanced technology (Internet, etc) was much more prevalent than in the U.S.
But; he said it was strange being there realizing that while it wasn't too common, he might find himself under missile attack-- the Houthi rebels in neighbouring Yemen (armed and supported by Iran) had missiles capable of hitting parts of Saudi Arabia...
Really? "HE" might not not know or care about human rights in Saudi Arabia, but thankfully, there are people who do and tell the rest of us about it.
Please spell out exactly how Iranians are treated worse than Saudis ...and then why we are supporting and selling arms to Saudi Arabia in view of the following.
How does anyone in the US defend Saudi Arabia?
Why does anyone in the US defend Saudi Arabia?
I included just one small part of the lack of human rights in Saudi Arabia.
I wasn't clear in my post. By "modern" he was referring to their use of modern technology being more advanced and widespread than in the U.S. I was skeptical-- but that's what he said. (Perhaps he was referring to people he was interacting with-- probably people in power, and living in big cities-- probably not the average Saudi...??? However even then I am skeptical about his claim the tecnology was more advanced and widespread than in the U.S.)
By "modern" he was referring to the use of modern technology....the topic of human rights did not come up. (I really wanted to ask him what were his thoughts re: Khashoggi as well as other widespread human rights abuses-- but didn't. Maybe next ti me I see him I will-- tactifully-- bring it up.
I'm not sure what his role is there. I did google him and saw he had been a member of the U.S. delegation to the UN many years ago. He is extremely fluent in Arabic and very familiar with cultures in the Mideast. Lived worked in Egypt for many years-- I am curious, am going to go back and see what years it was that he was member of UN delegation (to see whether it was under a Democratic or Republican administration).
Please spell out exactly how Iranians are treated worse than Saudis ...and then why we are supporting and selling arms to Saudi Arabia in view of the following.
I did not say that the Iranians are treated worse. While both countries are islamic theocracies, in most cases human rights are much better in iran. (Actually the regime is inconsistent in Iran-- occasionally they are extremely barbaric, but in others cases not). Saudi Arabia is medieval-- or worse!
IMO Iran is a nation of contradictions. Many of the people are more progressive than most other countries in the Middle East. But there are also many who are not. They have a totalitarian theocratic government, but a very large segment of the population opposes the government.
I have known quite a few Persians in the U.S. Most were from Muslim families--- but not a single one was really observant! (Actually one of my closest friend's family is Persian-- but they were not Muslims but rather actual Zoroastrians!)
...and then why we are supporting and selling arms to Saudi Arabia in view of the following.
Well, the main reason we are selling arms to the Saudis is that the defense industry lobbies are very powerful...and have tons of money.
And the Saudies (and I believe some other Gulf states) have YUGE amounts of oil money. They feel Iran is a threat-- so they spend a tremendous amount of money buying weapons from the U.S.)
Let us not forget the thousands of missiles provided by Iran to its proxy Hezbollah to rain on Israel. That just reminded me of something, about the procedures in Argentina to prove that Iran was behind the devastating explosion of a Jewish centre there - it was interesting that the prosecutor who had the proof was assassinated just before the matter was to be heard. I have not heard of the result of the carrying forward of those procedures....
Let us not forget the thousands of missiles provided by Iran to its proxy Hezbollah to rain on Israel.
I believe those missiles are Russian. Given to Iran by Russia-- I don't think Russia gives them to Hezb'Allah. but Iran gives them to Hezb'Allah.
Iran has also supplied some of them to Hamas. But Iran had an off-again on-again relationship with Hamas. On one hand what they have in common is that they both want to annihilate the presence of"infidels"in the area (in this case the Jews). However Hezb'Allah is Shia and Hamas is Sunni-- so at times their relationship has been tense.
That just reminded me of something, about the procedures in Argentina to prove that Iran was behind the devastating explosion of a Jewish centre there - it was interesting that the prosecutor who had the proof was assassinated just before the matter was to be heard. I have not heard of the result of the carrying forward of those procedures....
I think the issue is no longer being pursued.
Iranian backed terrorists have always had some sympathizers in Argentina. Of the German Nazis that were able to escape Europe at the end of WWII, a large percentage secretly re-settled in Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay.
Saudis say their tankers were sabotaged? Could it be self inflicted?
LOL. That's quite a stretch, even during these days that you can't believe anything you hear or read. And Norway attacked its own ship as well?
Don't know. Do you?
How would I know? The Mossad probably does but hasn't let anyone know yet.
The Mossad? They are involved? Really? Why and to what extent?
You tell me. You've got all the answers or you wouldn't be able to ask so many questions.
Odd reply. It was you who said the Mossad.
I don't believe or trust the Trump. And Bolton sold us the WMD bs------------------which my nephew lost his life in. For what?
Saudis say their tankers were sabotaged? Could it be self inflicted?
The last Iheard we don't know for sure who did it. However that doesn't seem characteristic of the Saudis.
Also, while many Americans aren't aware of it there's a major war going on in the area now-- an extremely barbaric war in Yemen. And while it is a civil war, one side is actively supported by the Saudis, the other side is supported by Iran.
Yemen borders S Arabia. The Houthis (the pro-Iranian Yemenis) have fired missile into SArabia-- so sabotaging Saudi ships seems like something they'd do. There is a lot of hatred between the two sides--and it goes back a long way (its Sunnis vs Shia)
I just goggled and found this-- from today's NY Times:
Yemen’s Houthi Rebels Attack Saudi Oil Facilities, Escalating Tensions in Gulf
BEIRUT, Lebanon — Yemen’s Houthi rebels carried out multiple drone attacks on Saudi oil facilities on Tuesday, a day after Saudi Arabia said two of its oil tankers had been damaged in an act of sabotage, ratcheting up tensions in the region.
A Houthi spokesman, Mohammed Abdul Salam, claimed responsibility for the drone strikes on Twitter, saying that they were a response to Saudi “aggression” and “genocide” in Yemen.
Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are fighting the Houthis in Yemen to restore the government that the Houthis ousted from the capital, Sanaa, in late 2014. The war in Yemen is viewed as another front in the regional power struggle between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
The Saudis and Iran, huh?
Still can't get the image out of my mind when the Trump did the Saudi Sword Dance with 'the chopper Crown Prince'.
The Saudis and Iran, huh?
These rivalries are based on sectarian religious hatreds that go back centuries (the Split between the Sunni and Shiite branches of Islam). In some circles its not considered politically correct to mention this, but...not all the violence in the Middle east has been the fault of the United States, the Jews, or other non-Muslim players....
Still can't get the image out of my mind when the Trump did the Saudi Sword Dance with 'the chopper Crown Prince'.
Trump wasn't the first one to do it (starting at about 0:17):
This is really starting to smell like a Gulf of Tonkin situation, with the added neocon stench of wanting to pick a fight with Iran.
Iran doesn't want to go head to head with the US.
From what I know, the Kearsarge ARS is on station just outside of the Straights of Hormuz, and the Lincoln CVBG has transited the Red Sea, and is also in the area of Yemen, or on the way to augment the Kearsarge group. Is Bolton daring Iran's proxy to take a shot at one of these battlegroups?
If Iran was wanting to go to war with the US, their three Kilo class subs would be at sea. USNI sources say they are all three tied up pier side in Bandar Abbas.
Iran Crisis Is Similar to Controversial Incident That Escalated U.S. Role ...
I think Bolton really does want to make it into another Gulf of Tonkin situation. I think Bolton is one of the most hawkish people in the government. IIRC he wanted to do a pre-emptive strike in N Korea-- just to show them who's boss. He's a dangerous nutcase.
I'm pretty sure Trump doesn't want to go to war with Iran-- although he likes to make bellicose statements and act tough.(Both to keep his "base" happy as well as to distract from some of the findings of the Mueller report that will eventually come out...).
I think the danger is that either Bolton will convince Trump that Iran is actually a real danger, is about to attack us, etc, etc.
Or that there's some accidental confrontation (shots fired by an Iranian ship at a U.S. ship in the Gulf..or vice-versa..and it quickly escalates even though neither Iran (nor Trump) initially wanted a shooting war.