Tanker attacks!

[JoyofBrex8889]

The torpedoing of tankers in the Gulf continues with 2 attacked and severely damaged today. Iran (main suspect) not keen on taking the blame: One of the cargos was Japanese, and Iran was having a diplomatic meeting with the Japanese at the time, not a good look!

Oil price has shot up.

Cui bono?

[youfoolishboy]

The facts are very varied an hour ago one of the tankers had allegedly sunk now seems to have refloated! I would say the torpedoes theory is a bit far fetched as well I am betting on Saudi and limpet mines, or Miss Scarlett in the library with the knife. Saudi are the ones that benefit most from these attacks. It makes Iranian US relations worse and improves the oil price. We will never find out but Iran hitting ships when the Japanese Prime Minister is visiting and one of the ships had 'Japanese related goods' does not seem likely and casts more of a shadow of blame on those who want the talks to be unproductive.

[dspp]

My take on it is that the six vessels targetted so far appear to have been the recipients of limpet mine attacks. This is consistent with the video of the IRGC boat removing the one unexploded mine from the hull of a tanker
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... er-attacks
and photo of two mines pre detonation
https://www.pprune.org/military-aviatio ... id=1&pid=1

The latest two tankers to be attacked had the mines attached close to but above the waterline. The ptrevious four were below the waterline
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... acks#img-3

So the first four were likely swimmer placed mines, the latest two likely boat-placed.

It is quite likely that the missiles the crews reported seeing (on the last two) were UAVs of one or more of the nations / etc active in the area.

The IRGC specialises in this sort of activity.

regards, dspp

[UncleEbenezer]

Cui bono?

- Someone seeking to monger war in the area? Need not be affiliated with any state - they could be looking at Gavrilo Princip and Yigal Amir.
- Trump's anti-Iran Agenda?
- Someone with a substantial bet on oil price/futures?

[77ss]

Cui bono?

- Someone seeking to monger war in the area? Need not be affiliated with any state - they could be looking at Gavrilo Princip and Yigal Amir.
- Trump's anti-Iran Agenda?
- Someone with a substantial bet on oil price/futures?

Cui bono indeed!

I think that blind faith in the US 'intelligence' is misguided. Think of Colin Powell's ludicrous claims about Iraqi mobile weapons laboratories, and even further back look at the Gulf of Tonkin business.

I have no idea who is responsible, but if the US wants to go to war, it has form when it comes to manufacturing reasons.

I wouldn't put anything past the Saudis either. The Sunni-Shia split is pathological.

[PeterGray]

The Saudis are certainly quite capable of doing something like this if they thought they would benefit. They have clear form. And they would see clear potential benefits - higher PoO, possible regime change in Iran - their worst enemy and largest power block in the region.

I hesitate to jump from that analysis to suggesting responsibility, but no serious attempt to ascertain blame could ignore them, or the others mentioned. Certainly grainy pictures of people in a boat apparently removing a failed mine doesn't seem like clear evidence - as far as I know Iran is not the only country in the area either owning or being capable of operating a powerboat.

[UncleEbenezer]

And the US government and its agencies are far from the only entities capable of forging footage, though it has form.

US Form on Iran is particularly disturbing. When Khatemi tried to mend relations with the West in the 1990s (after the turmoil of the revolution and war with the West's proxy Saddam Hussein), it was the US that spurned him. A clear signal that they were wasting their time, so it's hardly surprising they turned their back on the West and elected a very hardline president. Now Iran has been trying again with Rohani, only to meet with a stronger, more extreme rejection. If Iran's next president isn't a total Trump, it'll be because some of their Eastern trading partners - whose tankers were coincidentally victims of this attack - were the adults in the room.

[youfoolishboy]

One point to note Trump does not actually want war. His rhetoric on the campaign trail was all about withdrawing troops from the Middle East and he has done that in office and increased massively the risks for his allies, the Kurds, in Syria plus the aircraft carrier that has been sent to the area is not capable of launching an invasion force so I conclude it was probably not him. I stick by the Saudis as the culprits as I am certain even the Iranians are not so stupid as to attack Japanese goods when their PM is having talks in country that is madness. The video of a boat, a ship and something stuck to the ship is so full of possible holes as to be pointless even the quality is bad I am certain anything the US has that can record video is of much higher clarity so the picture quality must be also questioned as to why its so bad, whats it hiding? Would anyone who actually put a mine on a ship be so stupid as to go back in broad daylight, I am surprised there wasn't an Iranian flag on the back of the boat just to be certain and if the video was made why wasn't the boat tracked after I would find the evidence mush more compelling if the sailors were followed home or at least to dry land. I could go on for ever.

[dspp]

There are many factions within Iran. The IRGC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_R ... uard_Corps) and the mullahs are completely outside the control of the 'regular' government. The reverse is not so. Attacks of this nature (if of Iranian origin) are almost certainly attributable to the ICRG et al, not the regular forces. The mullahs are fully determined to spoil any moves by the softer factions in government towards a reasoned outcome, for all sorts of internal reasonings quite apart from external ones.

If it is the Iranians behind this, then it is still possible that the operatives in the water may have been of other nationalities. Plausible deniability and all that. There will be no shortage of folk who are currently either exiting Syria/Iraq, or in Yemen, or in North Africa, who could be the deniable tools on the job.

It would also be perfectly normal for the devices to be sourced from 'confusing' locations irrespective of who is behind it.

The western allies will have a lot more intel than the little snippets we get. So for example they will be fully aware of where that boat came from and went to. They may even have been able to track the ?? swimmers ?? and their mother craft (there are various ways). And they will have other sources within the command & control systems. Now the Saudis and all the Gulf states will have a pretty good idea of the intel capabilities of the west, as well as possessing their own intel.

Bottom line is I think the Saudis and Gulf states (and Oman) would be unlikely to act in this manner because they would be concerned about the reaction in the West, where they would expect he western leadership cadre to be fully aware it was them if it was indeed them. I cannot see the West conducting such an operation because of the implications if it ever leaked. So that pretty much leaves Iran and its orbit. I do not see the Iranian clients conducting an operation of this scale, nature, and consequence without control or authorisation from Iran. But all of this is very consistent with it being run by the hardliners in Iran, i.e. the IRGC and their leadership cadre.

Sometimes if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and behaves like a duck, then it really is a duck.

regards, dspp

[UncleEbenezer]

The truth is of course, we don't know. Hence Cui Bono, and my suggestion that it could be someone not affiliated with any state.

Supplementary thought. If the driving force were Iranian hardliners, should we blame Trump[1] for weakening their democratic government, damaging their rule of law, and strengthening extremists?

In reply to dspp "unlikely to be Saudis", erm, where have you been these past years? The Saudis know - and Trump has clearly confirmed - that they can get away with murder (and mass-murder), and Trump will bend over backwards to avoid seeing it, while the rest of the world scolds but does nothing.

[1] and others including Europeans who protest but do nothing to counter the pressures put on our companies.

[Nimrod103]

I don't understand the desire to defend the Iranians by some people here. They are ruled by a murderous evil tyranny, with a crazy well armed wing in the Revolutionary Guards. They have survived this long mainly because they have killed or intimidated all the moderates that used to be in that country. Their boat was caught on camera (night vision AIUI) removing evidence. Whether these bombings were directed by the Iranian Govt or not, there is no need to defend the Iranian regime. It would be better destroyed and replaced by a better democracy.

[dspp]

There isn't a functioning democracy in Iran, and there never has been. That is a real shame. I thoroughly detest Trump, but I cannot blame him for the lack of democracy in Iran.

I am not a defender of KSA either. The killing of Kashoggi is only the tip of the iceberg of bad things one can lay at their door. There isn't a functioning democracy in KSA either.

Both Iran and KSA are theocracies. One is a theocratic monarchy, and the other a undemocratic kleptocratic theocracy. I would rather that both were on different pathways. I know people living and working in both countries, and in others in the area, and do business with them all within the relevant legal constraints. There are good people in all these places, who would dearly love for better outcomes and circumstances.

But this thread is about the tanker attacks. On balance, the evidence so far, and the context in which it exists, leads me personally to so far think that the balance of probability is that the IRCG are behind it. I am not saying that the public-domain evidence is 100% certain in this respect, just that the balance of probability is in this direction. I am setting out the reasons why I think this. I am very open to alternative hypotheses provided that the supporting evidence is set out in much the same way I have. I will of course change my view(s) on these tanker attacks if better facts emerge.

regards, dspp

[UncleEbenezer]

I don't understand the desire to defend the Iranians by some people here.

History?

Take the history over my lifetime:
1. When I was born, Iran was ruled by a Western-imposed despot, who had come to power in a Western-backed coup against a democratic government.
2. A revolution against that in 1979 brought a terrible theocracy. The West almost certainly made things worse by backing our regional henchman Saddam Hussein to make war on them.
3. 1990s Iran made steps towards normalisation (not so bad compared to the aftermaths of other big revolutions like France or Russia). Europe (including Blighty) was willing to engage, but the US drove them back into the clutches of extremists.
4. ... and now Trump!

It's quite clear who is the more guilty party in that. To excuse Iran's transgressions might be seen like excusing Churchill's war crimes - because the other side was so very much worse!

[youfoolishboy]

I don't understand the desire to defend the Iranians by some people here. They are ruled by a murderous evil tyranny, with a crazy well armed wing in the Revolutionary Guards. They have survived this long mainly because they have killed or intimidated all the moderates that used to be in that country. Their boat was caught on camera (night vision AIUI) removing evidence. Whether these bombings were directed by the Iranian Govt or not, there is no need to defend the Iranian regime. It would be better destroyed and replaced by a better democracy.

I am not defending the Iranians I am pointing out the facts are not certain it is Iran that did it even the UK government with all the evidence you suggest the US is hiding from us which has presumably been made available to its strongest ally has not said categorically it is Iran how do you know for certain those were Iranians in that boat? As for a murderous evil tyranny I thought you were referring to the US lol their last excursion to Iraq killed a few and for no reason. They have interfered in many other countries around the world for their own aims as well and are happy to back murderous regimes around the world when it suits their purposes, I don't see much difference to other countries pursuing their aims.
I don't support Iran but am tired of all the biased Western propaganda we get fed constantly which conveniently misses out important facts or blatantly lies, sometimes you have to start thinking at it from the other side.

[PeterGray]

I don't understand the desire to defend the Iranians by some people here.

You should certainly not read my post as a "defense" of Iran (or I'd think any others). There's plenty wrong with Iran, but other nations are not blameless either, and it is essential that any response is cautious and based on clear proof, not assumptions. We've seen enough damage caused by accepting other people's assumptions (or deliberate falsehoods) in Iraq, to name one.

Saudi certainly seem to have proved to themselves recently they can get away with murdering their citizens in their embassies without comeback from the West, that doesn't mean they carried it out, and what dspp says about knowledge of boat tracks etc may well be important, but there are clearly others in the area (including within Iran) who might feel they have something to gain from destabilisation. The initial work on that has been carried out very effectively by Trump unilaterally pulling out of the treaty. I would hope the UK doesn't make the mistakes that were made in Iraq and jump on board any ill thought out response.

YFB says Trump doesn't want a war. It's a fair point, he is isolationist rather than interventionist by instinct. But he is also lacking in international experience, and not always the most stable. I would worry he could drag the US, and perhaps others, into a war without intending to.

[Itsallaguess]

YFB says Trump doesn't want a war. It's a fair point, he is isolationist rather than interventionist by instinct.

But he is also lacking in international experience, and not always the most stable. I would worry he could drag the US, and perhaps others, into a war without intending to.

I'm still quite shocked that he didn't release the Iran boat video on his twitter feed with the video played in reverse.....

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[PinkDalek]

I'm still quite shocked that he didn't release the Iran boat video on his twitter feed with the video played in reverse.....

Disguising the wake at the bow beforehand as it 'arrives''?

[Itsallaguess]

I'm still quite shocked that he didn't release the Iran boat video on his twitter feed with the video played in reverse.....

Disguising the wake at the bow beforehand as it 'arrives''?

I wasn't at all trying to suggest that it would have looked authentic...

Itsallaguess

[PinkDalek]

I'm still quite shocked that he didn't release the Iran boat video on his twitter feed with the video played in reverse.....

Disguising the wake at the bow beforehand as it 'arrives''?

I wasn't at all trying to suggest that it would have looked authentic...

Clearly!

[youfoolishboy]

YFB says Trump doesn't want a war. It's a fair point, he is isolationist rather than interventionist by instinct. But he is also lacking in international experience, and not always the most stable. I would worry he could drag the US, and perhaps others, into a war without intending to.

I think the Iranians currently in charge do not want a war either they cannot think for one minute they would win so I am guessing they will allow Trump a lot of sea room for gaffs however the man you need to watch is Bolton he is keen as mustard for a war after the Iraq war which he claims was a great success! If he can sway the President's wandering brain to his way of thinking then war it maybe.