What is the US up to with regard to Iran?

[Kyriakos]

Yes, if you want to sink the ship. But if you don't actually want to sink the ship and only want to stir up some trouble without incurring too much damage (and potential oil spills) you should attach the mines above the waterline.

It is also easier to attach them above the waterline, because you don't need divers. And incidentally, divers are harder to film during the supposed cover-up operation.

What possible gain would there be for Iran in attacking those tankers?

 

[Hrothbern]

"Saudi Arabia has urged a "rapid and decisive" response to recent attacks on oil tankers in the area"
Well.... that's not for Saudi Arabia to decide. They just sell that oil.

"Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih warned of a threat to energy supplies and market stability"
Well... that's an open door... isn't it ?
Nice to hear that Saudi Arabia is so concerned about all their customers' countries.

Fact is those ships did not sink.
And you can question whether that was the intention of the attack.

And BTW only 2 ships of the hundreds moving there.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

What possible gain would there be for Iran in attacking those tankers?

Instability in the region drives up oil prices at a time where Iran is beginning to make inroads back into Western markets. The Americans have renegged on the deal which would have seen the re-normalization of trade relations between Iran and the West. Europe is pissed about this and is trying to work with the Iranians to come up with a way to skirt the sanctions through in-kind trading (i.e. bartering). If the Iranians can provoke the Americans into further foolish actions that spark international outrage then perhaps the Europeans can be convinced to break the American sanction regimes entirely. Either way, when things are unstable in the Middle East - and in particular on this hyper-important shipping route - the price of oil can spike which makes the Iranian economic/negotiation position stronger. Plus, oil has slumped in general and that's hurting the Iranian economy. Even if the maneuvering to break the sanctions doesn't work out, the Iranians do trade with some countries and having their oil become more valuable helps their economy.

This is all supposition on my part to answer the question. I make no claims about this being true.

 

[uppi]

Instability in the region drives up oil prices at a time where Iran is beginning to make inroads back into Western markets. The Americans have renegged on the deal which would have seen the re-normalization of trade relations between Iran and the West. Europe is pissed about this and is trying to work with the Iranians to come up with a way to skirt the sanctions through in-kind trading (i.e. bartering). If the Iranians can provoke the Americans into further foolish actions that spark international outrage then perhaps the Europeans can be convinced to break the American sanction regimes entirely. Either way, when things are unstable in the Middle East - and in particular on this hyper-important shipping route - the price of oil can spike which makes the Iranian economic/negotiation position stronger. Plus, oil has slumped in general and that's hurting the Iranian economy. Even if the maneuvering to break the sanctions doesn't work out, the Iranians do trade with some countries and having their oil become more valuable helps their economy.

This is all supposition on my part to answer the question. I make no claims about this being true.

I don't think the Iranians are helped too much by high oil prices, because they have trouble selling that oil, anyway. They would have to walk a very thin line, because a military response by the US could be extremely devastating. The timing of this attack seems strange as well: Just when the Japanese prime minister was visiting Iran. To me, it doesn't make much sense for Iran to do this as a straight up operation.

The Saudis, however, could really profit from this. They would want the oil price to go up and they would want the US to be riled up against Iran.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Right but in this scenario while they'd benefit from higher oil prices, the goal is really to get the Americans to overplay their hand and thereby break the sanctions so they can sell or trade the oil more freely with Europe. If tomorrow we wake up and Trump has begun carpet bombing Tehran or even going after military installations in a big way, the backlash would be enormous. But yeah the theory is dubious at best because as you point out, that carpet bombing could absolutely wreck Iran in very short order which would be counterproductive.

The whole theory is dubious at best. I'm truly not sure what's going on except to say there is ****ery afoot.

There's also the possibility that the Revolutionary Guard or other paramilitary organizations carried these attacks out without any permission from the Ayatollah or government. The Iranians could be responsible for the attacks and not even be aware of that fact yet.

 

[Kyriakos]

Instability in the region drives up oil prices at a time where Iran is beginning to make inroads back into Western markets. The Americans have renegged on the deal which would have seen the re-normalization of trade relations between Iran and the West. Europe is pissed about this and is trying to work with the Iranians to come up with a way to skirt the sanctions through in-kind trading (i.e. bartering). If the Iranians can provoke the Americans into further foolish actions that spark international outrage then perhaps the Europeans can be convinced to break the American sanction regimes entirely. Either way, when things are unstable in the Middle East - and in particular on this hyper-important shipping route - the price of oil can spike which makes the Iranian economic/negotiation position stronger. Plus, oil has slumped in general and that's hurting the Iranian economy. Even if the maneuvering to break the sanctions doesn't work out, the Iranians do trade with some countries and having their oil become more valuable helps their economy.

This is all supposition on my part to answer the question. I make no claims about this being true.

Do you think that if Iran is accused of targeting merchant ships then the Eu will somehow overlook it and blame the US?
Cause there is next to no chance that the Eu will openly accuse US of falsely condemning Iran, and I have to doubt that the Iranian government consists of idiots or monsters.
An issue with US politics (and to a large extent UK politics too) is how easy it is for a lot of prominent politicians there to present the other side as a monstrous terrorist, while at the same time conveniently overlooking terrorist regimes they are allied with. Saudi is still waging war against its neighbor state - let alone the ongoing saga of prison state Israel.
Also factoring how good and reliable US/UK intelligence is, one should not support such outbursts and accusations so fast.

 

[uppi]

But yeah the theory is dubious at best because as you point out, that carpet bombing could absolutely wreck Iran in very short order which would be counterproductive.

There might be hardliners who believe that Iran could weather that storm and the US would be forced to back down before doing any real damage.

The whole theory is dubious at best. I'm truly not sure what's going on except to say there is ****ry afoot.

That is my take as well.

There's also the possibility that the Revolutionary Guard or other paramilitary organizations carried these attacks out without any permission from the Ayatollah or government. The Iranians could be responsible for the attacks and not even be aware of that fact yet.

Yeah, this would make much more sense than an operation ordered by the Iranian government.

 

[innonimatu]

Right but in this scenario while they'd benefit from higher oil prices, the goal is really to get the Americans to overplay their hand and thereby break the sanctions so they can sell or trade the oil more freely with Europe. If tomorrow we wake up and Trump has begun carpet bombing Tehran or even going after military installations in a big way, the backlash would be enormous. But yeah the theory is dubious at best because as you point out, that carpet bombing could absolutely wreck Iran in very short order which would be counterproductive.

There already seems to be a fight in the top echelons of power over US positioning on the Saudi-Iran conflict. In a rather unusual move, congress is denouncing anti-iranian propaganda approved and paid for by the White House.

Outrage on Capitol Hill over ‘completely unacceptable’ US-funded scheme to shape Iran debate

United States officials say they are outraged by a government-funded troll campaign that has targeted American citizens critical of the administration’s hardline Iran policy and accused critics of being loyal to the Tehran regime.

State Department officials admitted to Congressional staff in a closed-door meeting on Monday that a project they had funded to counter Iranian propaganda had gone off the rails. Critics in Washington have gone further, saying that the programme resembled the type of troll farms used by autocratic regimes abroad.

"It's completely unacceptable that American taxpayer dollars supported a project that attacked Americans and others who are critical of the Trump administration's policy of escalation and conflict with Iran,” a senior Congressional aide told The Independent, on condition of anonymity.
...
The campaign relentlessly attacked critics of the Iran policy on social media, including Twitter and Telegram messaging app, accusing them without evidence of being paid operatives of the regime in Tehran.

A spokeswoman for the State Department told reporters on Monday that funding for the “Iran Disinformation Project” had been suspended and is under review after it was reported that it went beyond the scope of its mandate by veering from countering propaganda from Iran to smearing domestic critics of White House policy.

This kind of propaganda campaign has of course always been business as usual in the US, not just in "autocratic regimes", and can legally be directed at american targets since Obama changed legislation to allow it. But it is very unusual for there to be a political fight over one, drawing attention to the dirty side of policy-making and manipulation of the public.

 

[Ajidica]

The Saudis, however, could really profit from this. They would want the oil price to go up and they would want the US to be riled up against Iran.

It also seems like the sort of stupid crap the Saudi Crown Prince would get up to - you know, the guy who kidnapped the Lebanese Prime Minister and then chopped up a journalist inside a Saudi embassy.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Do you think that if Iran is accused of targeting merchant ships then the Eu will somehow overlook it and blame the US?
Cause there is next to no chance that the Eu will openly accuse US of falsely condemning Iran, and I have to doubt that the Iranian government consists of idiots or monsters.

I mean I literally said:

This is all supposition on my part to answer the question. I make no claims about this being true.

While I don't find it that likely, given just how untrustworthy, hyperbolic, hypocritical and duplicitous the Trump administration has been, it's at least plausible that the EU might not side automatically with the US. And really the key here is how hard the Americans press their position. If the US just says, "Iran did it" but doesn't push for sweeping new sanctions that are so broad as to hurt the EU, then the EU is not going to side with Iran. If the US, however, immediately passes sanctions which make life significantly less comfy for European bankers and/or they begin bombing and disrupting oil markets more generally on thin evidence, then the EU might turn on the sanctions.

The EU is really not happy about the American withdraw from the Iran Nuclear deal and they have every right to be pissed over it as well.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I have a very hard time believing US intelligence

you and me both, brother.

 

[Ironsided]

It’s really just a slight volume change in the long running scheme of manufacturing of consent to constantly intervene in the area. Gaining a few more ignorant supporters for interventions every time. And the media is so flat on these issues they’d slide under a pancake - would be ashamed if I was a reporter. –Our job is to critically assess and challenge the powers, they say. What a joke

It also seems like the sort of stupid crap the Saudi Crown Prince would get up to - you know, the guy who kidnapped the Lebanese Prime Minister and then chopped up a journalist inside a Saudi embassy.

Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t the house of Saud just one of many houses maybe more accurately “family bands of brigands” that fought for power in the area? Saud were just lucky to be the band of choice when the US cracked the idea of “stabilising the area”, make the Saud kings again, all the while the actual reason was just securing US access to the vast amounts of oil. This does also explain a lot about why the US and its lackey (UK) are so understanding about Saudi crimes they would happily bomb governments and civilians alike to enforce in other nations in the region.

 

[Hrothbern]

Our job is to critically assess and challenge the powers, they say. What a joke

Not only a joke, but also damned arrogant.

What do I care about how they think to assess and challenge when they drown in their own version of that the facts that I need as citizen to form my own opinion to assess and challenge the powers.

 

[Ajidica]

Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t the house of Saud just one of many houses maybe more accurately “family bands of brigands” that fought for power in the area? Saud were just lucky to be the band of choice when the US cracked the idea of “stabilising the area”, make the Saud kings again, all the while the actual reason was just securing US access to the vast amounts of oil. This does also explain a lot about why the US and its lackey (UK) are so understanding about Saudi crimes they would happily bomb governments and civilians alike to enforce in other nations in the region.

Not entirely. The Saudis had already kicked the Hashemites out of Mecca and the Hejaz by the mid 20s and had become the 'internationally recognized' rulers of due to a series of treaties they concluded with the British. The Saudis were pretty well established by the time oil extraction began and the British began pulling out 'east of Suez' with 'Great Power responsibilities' being taken up by the US in the 70s and 80s.

 

[Hrothbern]

Not entirely. The Saudis had already kicked the Hashemites out of Mecca and the Hejaz by the mid 20s and had become the 'internationally recognized' rulers of due to a series of treaties they concluded with the British. The Saudis were pretty well established by the time oil extraction began and the British began pulling out 'east of Suez' with 'Great Power responsibilities' being taken up by the US in the 70s and 80s.

yes

@Ironsided
This a nice short wiki article of that British engagement around that period with St John Philby (the father of that famous spy Kim Philby... and that father BTW also a socialist despite that oil Saudi business)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_John_Philby

 

[innonimatu]

Rather ironically it was Winston Churchill, of all people, limiting expansion of the British Empire in Arabia due to budget concerts, that allowed the Saud to successfully take power in there, ejecting the Hashemites. Those were both preferred by the british and much more reasonable.

 

[Ajidica]

Rather ironically it was Winston Churchill, of all people, limiting expansion of the British Empire in Arabia due to budget concerts, that allowed the Saud to successfully take power in there, ejecting the Hashemites. Those were both preferred by the british and much more reasonable.

Any sources for this? Apart from Aden, Britain seemed to prefer signing treaties with the various Arab Gulf princes from the mid 19th century (ie Trucial States) than actually sticking their flag in the ground. Seems like with regards to the Saudis the Brits just continued what they were used to doing in Arabia and signed some treaties with Saudis.

Also, where are you getting the British preferring the Saudis to the Hashemites? The Brits spent most of the 20s, 30, 40s, and 50s trying to prop up the Hashemite client kingdoms they spread throughout the Middle East. Indeed, in 1956 Britain was semi-seriously considering armed intervention against Israel in favor of Jordan with Operation Cordage to secure the Anglo-Jordanian Treaty of 1948 and prop up the Hashemites as a counterweight to Nasser.

 

[innonimatu]

No, I meant that the british preferred the Hashemites, they found them more reasonable. They were just unwilling to support the expense of backing them militarily against the desert tribes. And without a british intervention the saudis captured the Hejaz. It was british non-intervention that allowed ibn-Saud to take power over Arabia. Churchill offered british political backing to the xerife of Mecca in the Cairo Conference of 1921, but withheld military backing due to budged concerns.

 

[Estebonrober]

Do you think that if Iran is accused of targeting merchant ships then the Eu will somehow overlook it and blame the US?
Cause there is next to no chance that the Eu will openly accuse US of falsely condemning Iran, and I have to doubt that the Iranian government consists of idiots or monsters.
An issue with US politics (and to a large extent UK politics too) is how easy it is for a lot of prominent politicians there to present the other side as a monstrous terrorist, while at the same time conveniently overlooking terrorist regimes they are allied with. Saudi is still waging war against its neighbor state - let alone the ongoing saga of prison state Israel.
Also factoring how good and reliable US/UK intelligence is, one should not support such outbursts and accusations so fast.

"Whether it's an attempt to remove Venezuela's democratic government or regime change in Iran, the USA is causing global instability in furtherance of its imperial interests. We must reject the lies being used by the Trump admin to gain public support for their disastrous plans," Chris Williamson, a member of the British parliament with the UK's Labour Party, said in a statement.

https://www.newsweek.com/iran-gulf-oman-germany-trump-administration-1444112

Rather shockingly the EU seems to be calling bull@#$% on the severity of the incident and the reality of it possibly as well. Iran can be this stupid of course, but the region and US foreign policy generally is so fragile it begs for agitation by foreign hostile powers and Trump allies like Putin, Kim, and MBS. This is what it looks like when your leadership is so stupid as to set itself up for disaster all over the world.

 

[Kyriakos]

"Whether it's an attempt to remove Venezuela's democratic government or regime change in Iran, the USA is causing global instability in furtherance of its imperial interests. We must reject the lies being used by the Trump admin to gain public support for their disastrous plans," Chris Williamson, a member of the British parliament with the UK's Labour Party, said in a statement.

https://www.newsweek.com/iran-gulf-oman-germany-trump-administration-1444112

Rather shockingly the EU seems to be calling bull@#$% on the severity of the incident and the reality of it possibly as well. Iran can be this stupid of course, but the region and US foreign policy generally is so fragile it begs for agitation by foreign hostile powers and Trump allies like Putin, Kim, and MBS. This is what it looks like when your leadership is so stupid as to set itself up for disaster all over the world.

I read that Iran is openly accusing US of actually being behind the incident.

I am sad that the stupid tories lost no time in parroting the US on this.

Also, from the article you linked:

On Friday, President Donald Trump called the morning television show Fox & Friends and claimed unequivocally that Iran was behind the attack.

WTH?