Anyone else finding themselves struggling to accept any of the competing narratives on this? Why would it be in Iran's interest to carry out an attack so easily attributed to them? I've only got a very broad-brush understanding of the geopolitics of the area, and the whole sectarian proxy-conflict between Iran and the Gulf States. Anyone better-informed care to comment?
The US have imposed sanctions on iran making it difficult for them to sell their oil to the 'west'. So iran are now demonstrating that they have the ability to disrupt/stop oil supplies from other nations in the middle east to the 'west'.
That's one potential narrative, but I can't help thinking it's the one that Trump, Pompeo and Bolton want us to follow.
Iran knows that Saudi and the US are desperate for an excuse to intervene militarily, for varying reasons. Why on earth would they give present them with exactly what they want?
The pre and post election cosying up between the Trump cabal and the Saudis, with or without the allegations of the 'grand bargain' for election assistance, means I have little or no trust for any 'evidence' so far publicly presented.
The US have got footage which they claim shows Iranian revolutionary guard removing a mine from one of the tankers.
Twenty years ago I would have believed them without too much thought. But who's to say it's not the American trying to de-stabilise the area. They do have history for this.
To me the footage just looks like some men in a boat. Could be anybody, including the CIA,
i expect someone just made a huge amount of money. Couple of tankers damaged, oil prices up by 5% in one day...
Mark Urban on newsnight highlighted that this is the 5th or 6th tit for tat attack in the last few of weeks
Ships damaged at port in UAE, boats set on fire in Iranian harbour, 2 drone bomb attacks in Saudi- blamed on Iranian backed houthi rebels, an Iranian gas platform damaged a few days ago & now the tankers.
Still both the west & Russia need someone to keep our arms industries afloat & those petrodollars are plentiful
It's probably Iran Vs Saudi, possibly acting through proxies, with possible involvement of Russia, Israel & maybe America
It's a big moneymaker for the USA, I doubt it was the CIA but shale reserves mean that they are currently self sufficient in gas so insulated by price rises, while arms sales to keep this war going are booming
It’s difficult to think of a worse trio than Trump, Pompeo and Bolton to bring stability to the region. Bolton is mad for conflict with Iran and Pompeo is striving for the second coming of Jesus and the rapture that will bring, possibly through nuclear Armageddon
Even if the conspiracy theories were right and it was some ruse by the Saudi's and US to justify an attack on Iran then its not a good one. All they'd need to do is step up protection for the tankers with a military escort so would not provide the excuse or justification to attack mainland Iran.
Iran has a very young and educated population who are being most hurt by the sanctions and the Iranian governments political stance. By kicking back against the US with these small attacks and increasing the tensions and rhetoric it suits them to keep their own population in line and deflects from the real reasons why the sanctions have been imposed on Iran which they'd find more difficult to justify to their population who are really suffering under the sanctions. The oldest trick in the book. Far more believable that the US and Saudi's have hatched some form of elaborate and complicated deception.
The US/Saudi pact to keep the cost of crude down is hurting Russia and Iran economically - they have an interest in creating instability causing crude prices to rise, either directly or via proxies
It’s difficult to think of a worse trio than Trump, Pompeo and Bolton to bring stability to the region
Good job our PM isn't a Churchill obsessed narcissist, desperate to toady up to trump & looking for something to unite a bitterly divided country & secure his mantle of truly great PM, or we might get sucked into any wars there....
When looking at anything that's going on in the middle east you have to view it through the prism of the deal that was struck after the OPEC oil crisis between America and the Saudi's. This is excellently covered in great detail in the Adam Curtis documentary Bitter Lake
To summarise: we'll keep the taps turned on no matter what happens, but the price for that is that we get to do whatever the **** we like, with complete impunity
All they’d need to do is step up protection for the tankers with a military escort so would not provide the excuse or justification to attack mainland Iran.
Easy in principal, impossible in reality. The American ships won't go through the Straight of Hormuz.
The geopolitical equivelent of being dropped off at the school gates and your mum telling the bully not to steal your lunch money again.
The American ships won’t go through the Straight of Hormuz.
Why not? Is that a recent policy decision? They used to go through it all the time.
After studying the history of American involvement in Latin America in the 60s and 70s I'd believe the USA is capable of anything they thought would destabilise a country.
The press is implying that the UK government is convinced by the evidence, but I don't see any of that here:
UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said his country's "starting point" was to "believe our US allies".
The US have got footage which they claim shows Iranian revolutionary guard removing a mine from one of the tankers.
I'd be more swayed if the footage was of them putting the mine ON the ship rather than taking it off.
Who's to say they're not just trying to stop the attacks?
Why not? Is that a recent policy decision? They used to go through it all the time.
They're about as wide as the English channel and the shipping lane hugs the Iranian border. Then further west the islands are disputed but occupied by Iran which means any shipping has to pass between the Iranian mainland and Iranian islands. Those are why they frequently board ships and arrest crews for being in Iranian waters, because it's pretty much impossible not to be.
Remember the fuss we made over an old Russian ship limping down the channel? Imagine that, but a whole fleet, a disputed border and the whole thing on the knife edge of kicking off.
That's why they won't do it unless they really want to wind the Iranians up.
Who’s to say they’re not just trying to stop the attacks?
Or it's not an Iranian vessel on the video at all...just one that looks like one.
The US have got footage which they claim shows Iranian revolutionary guard removing a mine from one of the tankers.Twenty years ago I would have believed them without too much thought. But who’s to say it’s not the American trying to de-stabilise the area. They do have history for this.
To me the footage just looks like some men in a boat. Could be anybody, including the CIA,
This, and
i expect someone just made a huge amount of money. Couple of tankers damaged, oil prices up by 5% in one day…
this.
That’s why they won’t do it unless they really want to wind the Iranians up
Which is exactly why they likely will. I'm sure they'll leave the carrier at a safe distance but I'm guessing some of the hawks would love for Iran to damage a US warship as that will give them all the excuse they need to flatten Iranian C&C, radar and military bases. Not that I'm pro-Iranian, I highly doubt they're innocent victims of US aggression
Election year next year in the US, as they say a war is good for an election
Especially if a US President thinks that winning an election is the only way to stay out of jail.
And let's remember, Trump has made it clear that this could be his Modus Operandi by ascribing it to his opponents, as he often does.
Which is exactly why they likely will. I’m sure they’ll leave the carrier at a safe distance but I’m guessing some of the hawks would love for Iran to damage a US warship as that will give them all the excuse they need to flatten Iranian C&C, radar and military bases. Not that I’m pro-Iranian, I highly doubt they’re innocent victims of US aggression
It would be a very ballsy move to send troops in with orders not to fire until fired upon. You're signing some sailors death warrants.
I think they would do it if tensions maybe weren't quite so high and could show strength without actually provoking an attack.
I doubt Iran would launch an anti-ship missile, they'd probably just strafe it from a gunboat as provocation but I could see this US administration using that as enough grounds to at least strike Iranian military bases in retaliation
That could be an outcome. But the alternative outcome is dead sailors and a media narrative that crucifies him for putting them within range of Iranian guns knowing they would be fired at.
Dont forget that Trump doesn't nessecerily want this war. He was elected on a platform of not intervening, saving money and America first. Invading Iran gains him absolutely nothing. America is only there to try and stop Iranian hostilities against its neighbours who they see as benefiting from an alliance with America and sanctions against them.
It would be a very ballsy move to send troops in with orders not to fire until fired upon. You’re signing some sailors death warrants.
I think the current president would think nothing of this.
The most factual industry account with out a political aspect.
These are all low collateral attacks.
A limpet mine on the transom will incapacitate a ship due to rudder/steering gear damage.
A hole punched midships will spill cargo causing a pollution incident, also incapacitating a ship.
Both of these do not impact the areas containing the crew. Nor do the crew frequent these areas 15 mins per day perhaps. Nor will it cause total loss of a ship, as the fore and aft ends are separate watertight constructions, and tankers are double hulled, so the cargo tanks are flanked by voids.
So IMO:
So in the very least the intention is not to incapacitate the crew, only the vessel and not to cause sinking or pollution.
A daylight attack increases detection greatly, hitting a target travelling at a steady 12kts day or night is of no challenge to a surface/submarine vessel. So why a daytime, unless the attacker was not a vessel of modern military capabilities? Or Unless you wanted to give the crew maximum survival chances.
Sounds like a very conscientious effort to minimise collateral at increased risk of detection...
Dont forget that Trump doesn’t nessecerily want this war
I pretty sure he doesn't want a boots-on-the-ground war, but I'd bet money he (and Bolton/Pompeo) want to bloody Iran's nose to either reign in their ambitions or trigger regime change by showing the leadership to be weak. I can't see it doing either but at worst it's probably going to improve his approval rating back home.
The is very much business as usual for the Iranians - we shouldn’t forget their kidnapping of Royal Navy sailors a few years back, the stockpiling of explosives in London (link below) or their support for the likes of the Houthi rebels in Yemen, funding of Hamas in Palestine and (little known), their long standing support for Venezuela.
This is all pretty predictable tactics from a regime that needs to agitate conflict against the West in order to distract the overwhelmingly young and economically underemployed population from asking whether an Islamist regime is a good thing.
The video looks like it was filmed on a VHS camcorder.
I don't get it...that report says "torpedo attacks"...but says damage is above the waterline. And don't these tankers have radars, so they'd know if a gunboat had approached and stuck a limpet mine on?
I don’t get it…that report says “torpedo attacks”…but says damage is above the waterline. And don’t these tankers have radars, so they’d know if a gunboat had approached and stuck a limpet mine on?
I think the narrative was that they'd been planted by divers presumably while they were anchored or loading at a refinery? And the video is supposed to be the iranians removing evidence.
the stockpiling of explosives in London
That’s a strange wee story, must have been quite difficult to hide the seizure of tonnes of explosives in metropolitan London from all the media. Thank god we have the telegraph and unnamed intelligence sources.
the stockpiling of explosives in London
ammonium nitrate
Lots of farmers stockpiling that 'explosive' too.
I appreciate you can use it as a very effective explosive, but that's not a typical use and describing it as an explosive is a bit misleading.
To me the footage just looks like some men in a boat. Could be anybody, including the CIA,
Not to go all JHJ but Erik Prince (of Blackwater fame) was alleged to be involved in negotiating some of the middle-east related shenanigans between Team Trump the Saudis and by extension Putin prior to his inauguration, if anyone could rustle up some "plausibly deniable" chaps to sabotage/attack shipping on the far side of the globe it's the founder of Blackwater...
Plus I'm sure he, or some of his chums are making a couple of quid from weapons and/or oil speculation off the back of all this right now.
I think the narrative was that they’d been planted by divers presumably while they were anchored or loading at a refinery? And the video is supposed to be the iranians removing evidence
ah ok...that makes more sense....but why didn't they stick they mines below the waterline?!
It's WMD's all over again.
ah ok…that makes more sense….but why didn’t they stick they mines below the waterline?!
Probably the difference between:
A two fingered salute to the US to say "you put sanctions on our oil, well you can't gave anyone elses either" because those tankers are going to be out of action for months and at some point insurance will stop covering that area. At which point the US either has to o something militarily or go back to the negotiations (with a bloodied nose and a few less cards).
And an ecological (and PR) disaster of actually sinking a tanker on your own doorstep.
All they’d need to do is step up protection for the tankers with a military escort so would not provide the excuse or justification to attack mainland Iran.
At a different angle to the above response (I'm sure some form of military support can follow an oil tanker)...
When was the last time the US only did what was necessary? Let alone did this under a republican president? And does Trump strike you as a sensible and calm guy that will do what's necessary and not fly off the handle?
The footage meanwhile is about the same quality as numerous big foot videos, and begs the question of why get caught removing the mine like that when it's been planted in such secrecy, and the objective of the removal is to maintain secrecy?
I'm not saying the Iranians are necessarily above doing something a bit illogical, just it's not massively implausible that it wasn't them (I mean sure, it probably was them, but the footage doesn't do much to convince me either way).
A couple of (extra) things that don’t ring true:
There are lots of people on that boat... are they the rescued crew of the
Kokuka Courageous?
Why is everyone at the front of the boat when there is lots of empty space at the rear... I know where I would rather be when someone is trying to bring an explosive device onto the front (unless they know it is not real)?
When was the last time the US only did what was necessary? Let alone did this under a republican president? And does Trump strike you as a sensible and calm guy that will do what’s necessary and not fly off the handle?
I'm not trying to stick up for Trump, but if you ignore him, the government and the media and just look at the USA quantitatively over the past few years they're doing alright.
It might all come crashing down with a funding gap between what he's spending and lower taxes, or Mexico might just open it's border and say "eff you, you deal with this, it's the american dream they want not mexico", rocketman might actually build a viable rocket, or evidence of Russian collusion might surface. But so far he's been lucky (and the saying goes, the better you are the luckier you seem to get).
All the politics around him is a different matter. To stay in power he needs to convince people to vote for him. And he does that very well by focusing on certain demographics. E.g. he can tell blue collar coal miners that he's on their side when everyone else has abandoned them. He can change policy so it supports them. I suspect that behind all that showmanship he knows that their jobs are done for regardless because it's cheaper to build solar panels and wind farms than coal fired power stations and that calculation is only going to shift one way. Same trick with gun laws, why bother being divisive and alienating voters when the whole system is going to stop you achieving anything. Show upto an NRA convention on the other hand and you've guaranteed a whole lot of votes. If you want to get into power, having popular opinions on stuff that isn't going to change is a good way to do it.
It's all about the politics.
Obama did the same on the left, lots of popular policies, often aimed at people who might not have voted at all previously (easier than trying to actually change someone's mind). But politically achieved very little in the end. Affordable care was setup in a way that's too easy to dismantle, gun laws didn't change, poverty and racism didn't change.
The footage meanwhile is about the same quality as numerous big foot videos, and begs the question of why get caught removing the mine like that when it’s been planted in such secrecy, and the objective of the removal is to maintain secrecy?
Probably from a small drone a long way away with the usual "nightime" mode on the camera (remove the IR filter and apply a shit-ton of gain). Doesn't look any worse than I'd expect.
Here's a question, why place limpet mines above the waterline?
2 having lit the blue touch paper, return to said explosive device and retrieve it.
Blimey what a coincidence! Explosives laid on vessels with Japanese interests on the very same day that the Japanese Prime Minister was in Tehran to discuss defusing tension in the area. Yep, this has definitely got Iranian skullduggery written all over it. They want to control their population by getting Trump to nuke them. I wonder who else in the region might like to see that happen?
Here’s a question, why place limpet mines above the waterline?
Because it's a lot easier. It would be impossible to place underwater if the ship is moving, fairly easy from a RIB sneaking in alongside.
A big enough charge will still cause severe damage.
Besides, if you hole a tanker below the waterline, you will release less oil than if you do at the waterline or above.
Oil tankers are very difficult to sink, due to the fact they have a lot of sub-division and are full of oil, a hole below the waterline won't sink it.
Have a look at SS Ohio to show how much they don't want to sink.
