SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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."
(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.