It’s weird in the way that it seems very tentative as causus belli… or causi belli go - as we learned in the 1980s, even full tankers of oil & most other hydrocarbons (natural gas excepted) are very hard to sink. These attacks are either amateurs who didn’t realize that the whole thing wouldn’t go ‘BOOM’ like in Hollywood movies, or professionals who wanted to raise tensions without a high body count.
Not sure that tells us much, but it is weird.
This is a very astute observation, Ravenman. I don’t claim to know what happened, but this is the most plausible of the various options.
If it is the Iranians - and that’s still an “if” - then I would guess that their rationale is that the Americans have declared economic war on them, their country is hurting badly because of this, and they therefore need to fight back. It is hard for them to fight back against America economically, so they would have to fight an assymmetrical economic war. All six attacks have been designed to damage, but not sink, ships. There has been no loss of life so far, so the damage done has been largely economic.
Iran’s aim would therefore be to send a message to the United States that “if you’re not going to let us sell our oil, then we’re not going to let anyone else transport oil through the Strait of Hormuz.” It would appear to be a risky strategy, though, to essentially economically attack neutral parties to put pressure on Trump/America.
If it is Iran, then I get the feeling that these attacks may have been done without the prior knowledge of the (relatively moderate) Iranian government (and so carried out by the Revolutionary Guard under direct order of the Supreme Leader). I’m partly basing this on the fact that the Iranian Foreign Minister denied that the Iranians were responsible on the day of the attacks, saying the charge was “w/o a shred of factual or circumstantial evidence”, yet he and the Iranian government have been silent on the matter since. I do find it a bit suspect that they have not said what they were doing with the “mine” they removed, or what happened to it. There is an innocent explanation there - that they were removing it for safety reasons - yet they have not thus far used it.
As with the rest of this post, this is just speculation. To round the post off, here is my list of suspects in order of suspicion for carrying out the attacks (highest to lowest):
Iran and/or Iranian proxies, such as Houthi rebels
Saudi Arabia and/or U.A.E.
Some Islamic terrorist group
Some other non-state actor (including S.P.E.C.T.R.E.)
Israel
Russia
U.S.
Norway
Any suspects I’ve left out?
Might be included in “non-state actors”, but maybe Boeing/Lockheed/Haliburton or other private actors who’d stand to materially benefit from war?
You think the tanker crew didn’t know they’d been hit by something?
The question is, does it make sense to them? The answers include, but are not limited to, the Maine, Tonkin Gulf and yellowcake.
While the head of the U.S. military - the Commander-in-Chief - is rotten, I’m not sure that the rest of the body is. Trump - or Bolton - can’t just personally order a goon squad of special forces soldiers to carry out these attacks. It would need to go through a chain of command in the military. Attacking neutral civilian ships would surely be illegal. I just feel that, if it was the Americans doing this, then the story might have come out, one way or the other.
The Maine, Gulf of Tonkin, Iraq War and Pompeo’s statement about the current incident, essentially boil down to civilian governments’ determinations and decisions based on the evidence they’ve been presented by the military/intelligence apparatus. Whether the evidence was sufficient or the governments’ motives sincere, is another matter. For the U.S. military to actually perpetrate such an attack is a step beyond this precedent - has the U.S. ever committed a false flag attack of a similar nature (outside of wartime, perhaps)?
That’s far too genteel a formulation. We have ample evidence of the Tonkin Gulf incident and the massive lies campaign in Iraq, purportedly the result of “bad intelligence”, having been created by the administrations with the intel agencies having been ordered to find what they were told to find. The Maine was almost certainly an accident that was then seized upon and massively lied about by the administration.
It is *the *matter.
Yeah, I’m just saying that I think there’s a difference between a government lying and a government ordering illegal false flag military operations against civilian ships from friendly countries.
Maybe so, but it’s one thing to yank the US’ chain when Obama was President; you’re fairly well assured that we wouldn’t actually do anything, except frown and say something stern.
Trump and cronies seem to be itching to bust a cap in Iran’s ass, and doing this now seems kind of insane.
And really… would sending the USAF and USN to wreck shop on Iran for a few weeks make Trump look any worse to the rest of the world? Would he care?
This is pretty much where I’m at, except perhaps for the phrase “at all costs”. There’s probably some limit to how many ships they should be allowed to (probably) blow holes in before we respond militarily, but I don’t think 6 non-American vessels with no loss of life is it.
No and no. But the rest of the world, or even half of his own country, are not the people whose adulation he seeks. If it got him some more intensity at his rallies, or fawning Fox coverage, or divert attention from his poll numbers, then hell yes, he’d do it.
Don’t you first have to find out who “they” are?
Perhaps the closest analogy from a “U.S. as suspects” perspective might be Operation Northwoods?
If Kennedy would reject such an idea, what would Trump do?
The House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff - who is literally as far from Pompeo/Bolton as you can get - says it was Iran.
Of course I don’t know what he knows, but when a Trump critic like that says something like this, I take notice.
I’ll take notice when actual evidence is presented and examined by people other than American officials. Being anti-Trump isn’t remotely a good enough qualification for trust with your whole government so hawkish on Iran.
So just for comparison purposes, what is the hard evidence that’s been presented that has convinced you that Russians meddled in our election?
There were a number of private security firms involved with investigating the DNC server hack. Add to that “Russian hackers” has come to be as much a common phrase as “Swiss bankers” well before 2016, and it’s fairly believable. But the bar to cross here is much higher, as military action is a real possibility.
I simply can’t trust American officials on shit like this. I was against Afghanistan but even the Dems were all onboard for that one. Because hey, of course we got to punish a country and of course Saudi Arabia can’t be it. American Hawk logic.
Germany now pointing the finger at Iran: