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: 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!!!!