from the smell-of-napalm-in-the-morning-means-higher-pump-prices dept.
Two Oil Tankers Attacked in the Middle East, Stoking Fears of Conflict
Two oil tankers on Thursday morning were reportedly attacked near the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial oil transport route that sits between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, echoing a similar attack last month and stoking fears about escalating tensions in the region.
It was not immediately clear who was responsible for Thursday's attacks, but the U.S. blamed Iran for last month's bombing of four tankers in the same general area, without offering a clear explanation as to why. Iran denied that allegation, but it is embroiled in several conflicts in the region. It has long feuded with U.S.-allied Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates—tensions only heightened by a clash over the civil war in Yemen—and Thursday's incident fueled fears that tensions in the region are approaching a breaking point.
Oil tanker attacks will inflame conflict between the US, its allies and Iran
Thursday's attacks on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman caused jitters in global markets and unease across a region that has been bracing for conflict throughout much of the year. As with the earlier attacks on 12 May, news of the latest strikes was again broken by media outlets aligned to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iran, who broadcast images of the attacks within minutes of them taking place.
Pictures of both ships ablaze spoke volumes about what is at stake in one of the world's most strategic waterways, as a regional player withering under ever tightening sanctions stares down a global superpower determined to impose its will.
Even the hint of obstruction in the strait of Hormuz, where ships pass each other like cars on a four lane motorway, is enough to upset oil markets. Frequent, and seemingly random, bombings of tankers, however, takes fears over energy security to levels not seen since the tanker wars, a byproduct of the Iran-Iraq war of the mid-80s, which sunk or damaged 543 ships in nearby waters and caused three years of turmoil in energy markets. By Thursday afternoon, two large shipping companies had suspended bookings from the Gulf oil ports.
...
Iran strenuously denied involvement in the May attacks and, in remarks on Thursday, appeared to be following suit. Javad Zarif, the foreign minister, described the attacks as "beyond suspicious" and Iranian media suggested an attack on a Japanese-owned tanker taking place at the same time Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe was meeting Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei pointed to a plot.Iran views Trump with contempt, but on balance believes the economic war launched by his administration, and military threats, are designed not to start a bombing war, but to shore up a negotiating position, vis-a-vis a bid to redraw the nuclear deal that was signed by his predecessor, and torn up by Trump last year.
Khamenei is known to be vigorously opposed to any new talks, particularly from a perceived position of weakness, and has told subordinates to carefully calibrate any response to US moves, which he believes aim to wind back its regional gains since the US-led ousting of Saddam Hussein and bring his regime to heel.
...
Ali Vaez, senior Iran analyst and Iran project director for the International Crisis Group, observed: "If Iran is behind these attacks, it clearly shows that a US policy relying solely on coercion can backfire. Diplomatic efforts by allies are necessary to dial down the tension, but they can't resolve it as long as Washington relies on an all-or-nothing approach."
Related Stories
Iran says it's 'completely ready for war' after US official confirms it shot down American drone
In a major provocation, Iran shot down an unarmed and unmanned U.S. Navy MQ-4C Triton drone while it was flying in international airspace over the Strait of Hormuz Thursday, a U.S. official told ABC News.
The incident is sure to trigger serious discussions within the Trump administration about how to respond to a direct attack on a U.S. military asset that goes beyond recent attacks in the Middle East that the U.S. has blamed on Iran.
Gulf crisis: US confirms drone was shot down by Iranian missile
A US military surveillance drone has been shot down by Iranian forces while flying over the Strait of Hormuz. Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) said the drone had violated Iranian airspace. But US military said it had been over international waters. IRGC commander-in-chief Maj-Gen Hossein Salami said the downing of the drone sent a "clear message to America" that Iran's borders were its "red line".
It comes at a time of escalating tension between the US and Iran. On Monday, the US defence department said it was deploying 1,000 extra troops to the region in response to "hostile behaviour" by Iranian forces. The US has also accused Iran of attacking two oil tankers with mines last Thursday just outside the Strait of Hormuz, in the Gulf of Oman. Iran rejects the allegation.
Previously: Two Oil Tankers Attacked, US Blames Iran
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @10:19AM (16 children)
WMD [wikipedia.org], RainbowWarrior [wikipedia.org], Lusitania [wikipedia.org], USS Maine [wikipedia.org]...
.
Cui bono?
(Score: 2, Disagree) by SunTzuWarmaster on Friday June 14 2019, @01:09PM (8 children)
(Score: 5, Informative) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday June 14 2019, @02:11PM (4 children)
Gulf of Tonkin, dude.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 3, Touché) by SunTzuWarmaster on Friday June 14 2019, @03:02PM (3 children)
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday June 14 2019, @04:59PM (1 child)
Plus the U.S. entry into WW1 kinda had to do with sinking ships.
wiki [wikipedia.org]
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @06:11PM
True, but since 102 > 100 it doesn't counter the (flawed for other instances) comment.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday June 14 2019, @05:21PM
Shouldn't feel too bad.... the question is if it hadn't been these events, would others have been picked that would have precipitated the conflict anyway? I think that's what I'm suspicious of - has elements of the administration been waiting for something they could pin on Iran regardless of the truth? There is no doubt that tactical plans have already been developed, and that the administration is already hawkish on Iran anyway. That makes it harder, because those things aren't real proof. Maybe, like Tonkin, we won't find out until a decade or more just how legitimate it was. Although there is already dispute [cbsnews.com] about it from one of the ship owners. Maybe this time we'll be smart enough not to trust unnamed "intelligence reports" saying that someone else is responsible.... maybe not.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @02:34PM
Pearl Harbor
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @02:54PM (1 child)
Nineteen radical muslims.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @07:04PM
And more than a billion peaceful Muslims. Sounds like pretty good odds to me.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday June 14 2019, @02:10PM (2 children)
You forgot perhaps the most relevant example, Golf of Tonkin [wikipedia.org], or USS Maddox Incident. Don't blame you though, since it happened in 1964. But the distortions, misunderstandings (charitably) and misrepresentations of the US Government (the most charitable one can get is that it was spun by politicians contrary to the ground facts) led to an act allowing Johnson to escalate in Vietnam.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 3, Funny) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday June 14 2019, @02:10PM (1 child)
It might have even been the Gulf of Tonkin. Golf at Tonkin would have been more peaceful despite the reputation of that sport.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @02:37PM
That depends on if rDT was playing/cheating.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @02:52PM
Add USS Liberty to the mix, definitely looks like Mossad again.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Friday June 14 2019, @03:22PM (2 children)
An interesting wrinkle is that one of the tankers is Japanese.
The Prime Minister of Japan was in Iran, discussing how to reduce tensions with the Ayatolla, when the attack occurred.
Does it really make sense for Iran to attack a Japanese tanker with the Japanese PM in the room?
Or, does it make more sense that Trump and the Republicans are bullshitting us into yet another war in the middle east?
Japan Prime Minister Abe makes historic trip to Tehran to ease US-Iran tensions [usatoday.com]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Friday June 14 2019, @03:46PM
Update on the Japanese angle:
Japanese Oil Tanker Owner Says U.S. Is Wrong About Gulf Attack [thedailybeast.com]
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday June 14 2019, @06:23PM
Various people (the captain?) on the tanker denied that it was the Iranians. They could be wrong, but I think it's more likely the US govt is lying again.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @11:04AM (26 children)
I'm torn. On one hand I find Pomeo's credibility to be very, very low. On the other hand there's video [apnews.com] of Iran's Revolutionary Guard removing an unexploded mine from one of the oil tankers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @11:14AM (4 children)
And pulling the mine off signifies what? If Saudi planted a mine that says "Made in Iran", Iran would want to take it.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @11:40AM
May be they used these [amazon.com]?
Because, you know, modern mines planted by elite state forces are so prone to fail and so conveniently? And WTH we have photos! [cbsnews.com]
I can't see how this could benefit Iran in any way, more over when have maintained the nuclear deal with EU and US despite US unilateral retraction and sanctions.
Who knows, could be SA, Israel to even the US or any of the many declared or undeclared well deserved enemies of Iran.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @01:37PM (2 children)
How would Iran know what type of mine it was, or even know that one was still attached to the ship?
Why would an Iranian Revolutionary Guard vessel even approach a ship that has just been attacked? And why would they have the personnel on board to remove a mine (most sailors are not demolition trained)?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @06:17PM (1 child)
If you want to sink a ship wouldn't you place the limpet mine at or below the water line?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @07:06PM
So you're saying the Iranian Revolutionary Guard doesn't know what they're doing? Better not say that while sailing through the Straights of Hormuz.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by c0lo on Friday June 14 2019, @11:32AM (11 children)
You're not alone [time.com] in this state
See? That's the disadvantage of a power either-or politics, it reduces you to a binary choice.
What was wrong again with that multi-country treaty that Trump dropped? Was it because it was Obama's signature on it or was it because it reduced the profit if the "traditional allies" the Saudis and UAE (by opening up Iran and allowing them to sell some of their oil)?
In any case, a third option was eliminated from the table with nothing to replace it. I can't say it was a wise move, seems more on the contrary to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: -1, Troll) by khallow on Friday June 14 2019, @12:49PM (8 children)
Didn't serve the US's needs. Having more signatures on a treaty doesn't make it better.
Attacking people tends to do that. Why aren't you at all concerned about Iran's binary actions here? How come it's only the US that needs to have the nuance?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Friday June 14 2019, @02:52PM (5 children)
So, I'm curious, with a "global peacekeeping force" that includes (at least) 10 aircraft carrier groups, and surveillance capabilities that would have been deemed science fiction during the Cuban missile crisis, how is it that attacks on merchant ships in the most volatile and valuable shipping lanes in the world happen without identification, capture, tracking or at the very least destruction of the perpetrators?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @06:48PM
*These are not the drones you're looking for*
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @10:28PM
Ministry of Peace.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 15 2019, @05:05AM (2 children)
Because the "global peacekeeping force" isn't that good. At least the present story is claiming that identification of the attackers has been made.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday June 15 2019, @12:37PM (1 child)
As much of a waste as I think a carrier group is, one thing it is good at is projecting force in a region about the size of the strait of Hormuz. They have the gear, they have the training, if anyone in charge cared they would have intel and control of the situation.
If the carrier group is in position and just jacking off to porn all day, that's on leadership for not demanding performance.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday June 17 2019, @02:05PM
Hey, ho, slow down. Porn is much less expensive than any ammunition and military stuff, so if they have a forceful enough eja... ummm... projection, then...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday June 14 2019, @10:18PM (1 child)
Because, so far, Iran has been reacting.
At least since Operation Ajax/Boot (1953) [wikipedia.org], even though the history is much longer [wikipedia.org]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 15 2019, @05:36AM
I notice here that you claim that Iran has been binary "reacting" since at least the 1950s and still make it the US's fault. Whatever.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @01:41PM
IMHO, it was Obama's signature, the Saudi's profits, and that Trump wishes to kowtow to the Saudis in order to secure funding (either directly or via proxies) for his (and his son-in-law's) real estate dealings.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Friday June 14 2019, @02:46PM
Succinctly summing up all actions of the office of the president 2017-2019.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @12:39PM
Perhaps you also want to read this then: https://japantoday.com/category/national/Ship-operator-says-sailors-saw-'flying-objects'-just-before-attack [japantoday.com]
The crew and owners of the ship say it didn't hit a mine. (Contradicting US military)
Further the video shown seems a bit strange coming from military source, it lacks any timestamps / coordinates / IDs / ... on the frames. The video isn't very detailed either, the boat filmed doesn't have flags or other things that I can identify would be Iranian. The video focuses heavily on the crew of the boat, it doesn't show a good overall picture, the frames where the oil tanker is present show no signs of damage to the tanker. (But the tanker isn't visible much)
The video start/stop time are a bit weird,seeing how the boat approaches the tanker might give some clues as to it being a clandestine approach or a more regular patrol/customs approach. I can't see/identify if they are detaching a mine or just climbing back on board.
So my conclusion so far is that the initial US explanation is not credible, unfortunately, I/we don't really now what happened yet. As there are multiple nearby players, including US, Israel, SA, whose leadership would benefit from an open war between the US and Iran, false flag attacks to try and blame Iran are to be expected. So an accusation that Iran is doing this better be backed up with more credible evidence, preferably from more credible sources.
Oh and, if you hear people saying a Iranian military vessel was nearby, well I surely hope so, it's just off the Iranian coast. Just remember that there are also a dozen US military ships nearby (nowhere near US coasts), I think recently also even an aircraft carrier group or aircraft bomber squad.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @02:43PM
How does removing a mine create any logical link to having targeted the ship with it?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday June 14 2019, @04:02PM (6 children)
People who were on the ship when it was attacked are saying that Pompeo is lying.
Tanker owner seems to dispute U.S. account of Gulf of Oman attack [cbsnews.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @06:37PM (5 children)
Normally the MSM doesn't have a war they don't like, but their blind hatred of Trump's administration will deny Bolton and Pompeo the public drumbeating they need to have their plans succeed.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday June 14 2019, @09:30PM (4 children)
Ask W whether you actually need support to start a war, once you've decided.
(Iran is too big for a full-scale war, though. Taking back the area around the strait is all Riyadh needs, and blowing up the Ayatollah is all Bibi needs)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15 2019, @12:45AM (3 children)
And remember how reluctant the MSM were then to challenge W and his junta's plans.
But Trump's president now, and if he's saying trees are green, CNN will find a dead one and blame it on climate change.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Saturday June 15 2019, @12:57AM (2 children)
> And remember how reluctant the MSM were then to challenge W and his junta's plans.
Fear of being branded a traitor by a rabid populace thirsty for revenge ... Always a good motivator !
> But Trump's president now, and if he's saying trees are green, CNN will find a dead one and blame it on climate change.
While CNN is regularly going over the top, because 24/7 and second place, one does not have to stretch much to notice how bafflingly simple and obvious facts usually disagree with POTUS's endless misleading claims.
The man would not stoop down to saying that a tree is green, because he believes it's more beneficial to state that Pelosi is so dumb she can't see it's red, obviously totally red folks, and everyone who doesn't agree is fake news. Which Fox would then defend.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15 2019, @01:34AM (1 child)
Keep in mind that stoking for war against Iraq started picking up more than a year after 9/11. Besides, half the voters in this country voted for Trump; the liberal media doesn't give a shit anymore whether a large part of the population gets offended at their message. The conservatives have switched their dial to Fox, where they hear news to make themselves feel better, while CNN et al hype up Trump's every facial tic to keep their (remaining) audience in a constant state of hysteria and righteous umbrage.
Nah, he would say something like "since I became President, our trees have become the best ever, our trees have the world's greatest green." But our resident president can let us know what he would say.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday June 15 2019, @10:24AM
I'll tell you about John. He has strong views on things but that’s O.K. I actually temper John, which is pretty amazing. I’m the one that tempers him. That’s O.K. I have different sides. I have John Bolton and other people that are a little more dovish than him. I like John. But I don't like getting into wars. And I'll tell you about Iran. I don't want a fight with Iran. I want a deal. But, if Iran wants a fight, if they ever threaten the United States again, that will be the official end of Iran. They will suffer consequences the likes of which few throughout history have ever suffered. We are no longer a Country that will stand for their demented words of Violence & Death. Iran, if you're listening -- BE CAUTIOUS!!!!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Friday June 14 2019, @11:58AM (3 children)
Is this Iran? Or a false-flag by the US? Or some third party trying to escalate tensions? There is not enough evidence to be sure, and the trustworthiness of all parties is completely nonexistent. It's all a question of whose propaganda you believe.
I think the only reasonable response is to have the UN take a role.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Friday June 14 2019, @12:21PM (2 children)
From BBC
> The UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said his country's "starting point" was to "believe our US allies".
It's a rather mitigated response from a traditional US ally - even UK doesn't believe it... (though they are distracted right now).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @12:39PM (1 child)
Right now? You insinuate there are times when they are capable of focus?
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday June 14 2019, @05:05PM
UK had a functioning government from 1979 to 1995 and 1997 to 2016
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @01:10PM (2 children)
You can't sneeze without somebody capturing it on a smart phone.
Why would anybody run thru an area that has seen recent attacks without video cameras all over the ship?
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday June 14 2019, @09:32PM (1 child)
Money. It's a big ship, and all-weather cameras and recording devices are expensive.
They skimp on crew wages like crazy. Those guys are not spending a dime they don't need.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @11:24PM
The insurance company disagrees with you.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by inertnet on Friday June 14 2019, @01:24PM (4 children)
Follow the money. Who benefits from these attacks? Investors?
Of course there could also be some twisted ideological reason for the attacks, but I would check the oil market for big winners right now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @01:51PM (1 child)
Don't know about the rest of the world, but oil companies in AU raised petrol prices in advance of the attacks, citing the increase in crude prices caused by the attacks.
Read that again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @02:09PM
the AU is closer to the date-border ^_^
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @02:54PM
Mossad
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday June 14 2019, @03:41PM
The same people who benefited from bullshitting us into a war with Iraq.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 14 2019, @01:35PM
makes no sense.
methinks 'murika has proven time-and-again that they're the "god of bombs".
air superiority is not contested. for land based anti-air stuff, there's always tomahawks first.
so either this is really really ... really st0pid iran or allies of them doing some weather
dance so it will rain bombs -or- somebody is trying to make the iranium look really really st0pid.
maybe enough bombs have accumulated and a low pressure system "is being actively formed" in the area?
one things for sure: if there where no oil there, no low pressure system would EVER form ... there.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday June 14 2019, @09:37PM
> news of the latest strikes was again broken by media outlets aligned to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iran,
> who broadcast images of the attacks within minutes of them taking place.
Did you know that video of the 9/11 attacks was broadcast live by US TV stations, who are known to propagate US propaganda ?
In case I need to spell it out : You're just off the coast of Iran ! Who's gonna broadcast your accident right away, Benin TV ?