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: 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]