Posted on 09/16/2019 5:35:10 PM PDT by robowombat
Trump: US is 'Locked and Loaded' to Respond to Saudi Oil Attack
By Steve Herman September 15, 2019
U.S. President Donald Trump says American forces are 'locked and loaded' to respond to the fiery attacks on one of Saudi Arabia's largest oil fields and the world's biggest crude oil stabilization facility.
"There is reason to believe we know the culprit," Trump tweeted late Sunday. He added he is waiting to hear from the Saudis as to who they believe is behind the attack and "under what terms we would proceed."
Earlier, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had tweeted that "Iran has now launched an unprecedented attack on the world's energy supply," discounting the claim of responsibility by Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen who said they carried out the attack by drones.
Iran calls the charges it is behind the attack, "maximum lies."
Likely targets in Iran for the United States or Saudi Arabia "would be refineries and critical oil facilities," Ali Shihabi, the founder of the Arabia Foundation, tells VOA.
Shihabi says, despite Trump's tweet, it is not about Riyadh "deciding," that any action the Saudis take "in retaliation across the Gulf will expose U.S. troops and facilities to Iranian attack, so it has to coordinate with the U.S."
Middlebury Institute of International Studies scholar Jeffrey Lewis says Trump leaving the decision to the Saudis "is pathetic."
Lewis, the founding publisher of the Arms Control Wonk blog, tells VOA the U.S. president is "clearly leaving himself an out" – so he can declare that he "wanted to retaliate, but it was the Saudis who said no."Lewis adds that Trump "likes to talk tough and I can't rule out something symbolic, but I don't think he has the stomach to start a war."
The rising tensions are causing oil prices to soar in Monday trading in Asia.
Benchmark oil futures jumped as much as $11.73 a barrel to $71.95 as markets opened, the largest ever rise in dollar-terms since futures started trading in 1988.
Trump also announced on Sunday that he was authoring the release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, if needed, "in a to-be-determined amount" sufficient to keep the markets well-supplied.
The attack on Saudi Arabia's Abqaiq plant and the Khurais oil fields before dawn Saturday, caused massive fires.
The Saudis say no one was killed or injured in the airstrikes, which some analysts suspect might have been a precision attack with cruise missiles from Iran or Iraqi territory.
The destruction is severely cutting into Saudi Arabia's daily output of 5.7 million barrels of oil per day – close to 6% of the world's daily production.
Saudi officials are scrambling to restore operations and say they would tap into the country's reserves to keep deliveries coming.
Trump on Sunday also termed as "fake news" the reports that he was willing to meet with Iran with "no conditions."
However, last Tuesday two of his cabinet members, Pompeo and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin had said that the president was willing to meet Iranian President Hassan Rouhani with "no preconditions."
It had been anticipated such a meeting could occur during the United Nations General Assembly session later this month in New York City.
Iran's government had stated, however, that would not be possible unless Washington lifted sanctions on it.
The United States is maintaining what it calls a "maximum pressure" campaign on Tehran over its nuclear and ballistic missiles programs, after Trump last year withdrew Washington from a multi-nation deal to restrain Iran's weapons of mass destruction programs.
Trump said the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, agreed to during the second term of his predecessor, Barack Obama, as one of the worst and most one-sided agreements ever entered into by the United States.
The whole thing seems a bit fishy.
> What do they [the Saudis] do with all that oil money? <
They fund radical Muslim religious schools all over the world.
There is a difference between conditions and preconditions.
A victory for the sanctimonious Democrats. Fossil Fuels take a hit — makes solar and wind seem more viable, a continuation of “no blood for oil” theme.
And at the same time blame Trump for scrapping the Iran deal, that’s what kept the peace, in their twisted logic.
The US is always “locked and loaded” ... or rather “prepared” in case action needs to be taken.
Imagine if Obama has said something like that. He’d have been praised as brave and heroic.
Interesting tweet. Media will have a ball with it.
Saudi should be the ones that have do that, though, in this case.
Exactly. Sick of defending uber rich sobs with our military boys while the democrat anti-American party stabs us in the back at every turn. Thank God we are nearly energy independent!
Fund plane crashing terrorists?
This is not our war. Let the SAudis fight their own war. They have funded terrorism for years.
Neda..
I am glad to see that someone remembers dear, courageous Neda.
Obama turned his back.
I don’t believe President Trump will.
But, he will act in a measured way, only when he is 10/10 certain of victory. Maybe his timetable won’t meet everyone’s approval.
In direct contradiction to all of the libtard caterwauling, the President did not start global nuclear war on Inauguration Day. Unlike his predecessors, President Trump has *not* dragged us into any really stupid wars.
He has proven himself to be remarkably restrained. I trust his judgement.
There are so many good reasons to try to get the Saudis to handle this one themselves. We can back channel all the help they need, but, get them to do this.
I suspect Secretary Pompeo is working on exactly that.
The far better outcome would be for the US to convince the Saudis to retaliate themselves.
There is no downside to the Saudis and the Mullahs killing each other off.
Saudi Arabia won’t go after Iranian nukes.
Actually, the Saudis can detect incoming drones or cruise missiles, assuming they had an AWACS airborne at the time. I’m quite sure that we did and know exactly what was used, by whom and from whence the attack was launched.
As to why the Saudis haven’t/won’t(?) respond, a significant number of officers in the Saudi military are “members of the royal family,” none of whom are in a hurry to die. I trained quite a few of their army officers and a couple of air force officers and I got the impression that they considered their military equipment their playthings and service in the military was an obligation of sorts, not something to be taken seriously (kind of like much of British royalty). Attacking essentially undefended targets in Yemen is one thing; flying into Iranian (Russian) air defense systems is quite another.
Why would Iran do this? Iran’s economy is collapsing. Whether it will result in the dissolution of the theocracy, we’ll see, but I doubt it. Like dictators everywhere, the mullahs know that the Iranian people - and not the mullahs - will be the ones to suffer.
Iran would conduct such an attack for a few reasons, all of which they’ve done before. Iran seized foreign vessels (not US) to demonstrate that they could and to remind people of the vulnerability and strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz, knowing full well that there would be no military response - despite the fact that they committed an act of war. By so doing, they could increase international pressure on the US to lift sanctions. They conducted this attack for the very same reasons.
If they believed there would be no repercussions, then why do it at all? What’s their advantage? To let the world know what they already know? No disrespect but that doesn’t add up in my mind.
They must be playing a longer game here, thinking several moves ahead. OK, so trying to play devils advocate, if they really believed there would be no repercussions, then this move could be an attempt to show Trump/US as a paper tiger - afraid to engage in conflict. That could very well be a calculus of theirs. They think Trump won’t engage, won’t do much damage, or won’t make it to a second term. Enemies of the US in China, Iran, Russia and elsewhere would love to show Trump as an empty suit / naked emperor.
But I don’t think that is a proper evaluation of the man or the situation. I think Trump would be more than happy to give back to them as good as they gave. It plays into his ‘deal of the century’ to neuter Iran and the Iranian regime. It also plays into his plans to disengage, as ironic as that seems - but taking out the Iranian regime and pushing an Israeli-Arab peace deal is easier with Iran out of the picture. Maybe as you say the regime will survive but I don’t see why, if we engage, we should let the mullah’s save face. If we engage, they will fall by our hand or by the gallows of their own people for screwing it up. We’ll see who is right in due time of course. But I saw what we did in Kosovo, what we did during Gulf War I. Those were not the dragged out conflicts of Iraq/Afghanistan post 9/11. Those were shock and awe - 100 days of bombing. Potentially, without one boot in Iranian soil (or, just a small number to laser the targets I don’t know what the technology is today), we could cripple Iran and it’s political regime. Neither the Iranian economy, nor the regime, could last 100 days of sustained military attacks from the air and sea. I don’t see Russia stepping in the way - indeed Russia could be bought off imo with promises of future Iranian market deals.
And an attack on Iran opens the floodgates - Israel will move to crush Hamas. Israel/US will move to crush Hezbullah in Syria and the Syrian proxy armies. Maybe Assad will survive but he will be isolated without Iran or Hezbullah or Hamas. Iran is facing total political and economic annihilation. It’s one hell of a gambit - assuming of course they are behind the attacks. Whether they are behind the attack or not, someone wants to blame them for it.
It’s a sad state of affairs these days. Having observed what the “deep state” has done in the attempt to remove/marginalize Trump, it is hard - very hard - to take what they may say seriously. They supported Obama’s Iran deal. Now they support, perhaps, strikes on Iran? It’s too much to bear honestly. I don’t know whom to trust. Even if I give Trump 100% of the benefit of doubt I can’t be sure he isn’t being played. Friggin’ sucks, frankly.
Actually, the Saudis can detect incoming drones or cruise missiles, assuming they had an AWACS airborne at the time. I’m quite sure that we did and know exactly what was used, by whom and from whence the attack was launched.
As to why the Saudis haven’t/won’t(?) respond, a significant number of officers in the Saudi military are “members of the royal family,” none of whom are in a hurry to die. I trained quite a few of their army officers and a couple of air force officers and I got the impression that they considered their military equipment their playthings and service in the military was an obligation of sorts, not something to be taken seriously (kind of like much of British royalty). Attacking essentially undefended targets in Yemen is one thing; flying into Iranian (Russian) air defense systems is quite another.
Why would Iran do this? Iran’s economy is collapsing. Whether it will result in the dissolution of the theocracy, we’ll see, but I doubt it. Like dictators everywhere, the mullahs know that the Iranian people - and not the mullahs - will be the ones to suffer.
Iran would conduct such an attack for a few reasons, all of which they’ve done before. Iran seized foreign vessels (not US) to demonstrate that they could and to remind people of the vulnerability and strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz, knowing full well that there would be no military response - despite the fact that they committed an act of war. By so doing, they could increase international pressure on the US to lift sanctions. They conducted this attack for the very same reasons.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.