Here we go, Gulf of Tonkin redux

Right? Left? Centre?
Political news and debate.
Put your views and articles up for debate and destruction!
Post Reply
User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Here we go, Gulf of Tonkin redux

Post by Scooter »

Pompeo Says Intelligence Points to Iran in Tanker Attack in Gulf of Oman

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Thursday that intelligence reviewed by American officials showed that Iran was responsible for attacks earlier in the day on two tankers in the Gulf of Oman, a critical waterway for the transit of much of the world’s oil.

Mr. Pompeo did not present any evidence to back up the assessment of Iran’s involvement. The assertion is certain to further fuel tensions between the Trump administration and Iranian leaders, which have been at heightened levels since early May, when the White House announced military movements in response to what American officials have said is an increased threat from Iran.

Speaking at a news conference in Washington, Mr. Pompeo said the sabotage against the two tankers was only the latest in a series of recent violent acts by Iran.

“Taken as a whole, these unprovoked attacks present a clear threat to international peace and security,” he said.

The rapid escalation of tensions in early May between the United States and Iran took place around the time that four tankers were damaged by explosions at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, near the Strait of Hormuz. The explosions that occurred in the same area early Thursday morning, which forced crews to abandon ship and left one vessel ablaze, were similar to the incidents last month.

Mr. Pompeo and John R. Bolton, the national security adviser, both said late last month that Iran was responsible for those earlier attacks, though neither have presented evidence. On May 30, Mr. Pompeo told reporters that he had seen evidence of Iranian involvement and said “these were efforts by the Iranians to raise the price of crude oil throughout the world.”

Details of the incidents on Thursday have remained murky, as they have for the explosions in May. Given the widespread criticism over the Iraq War and presentation of faulty intelligence that led to it, the Trump administration faces great pressure from Congress, the American public and foreign allies to lay out explicitly any evidence of threatening actions by Iran.

Mr. Pompeo said the American government’s assessment of Iranian responsibility for the attacks was based on an analysis of intelligence, weapons and patterns of previous actions. He left open the possibility that an armed group in the region tied to Iran might have carried out the attacks, saying that no other forces in the area have sufficient training or capabilities for the operations other than those supported by Iran.

A United States Navy P-8 surveillance plane flying over the stricken tankers on Thursday spotted an unexploded mine attached to the hull of the Kokuka Courageous, one of the damaged ships, a Defense Department official said. The so-called limpet mine resembled the kind of explosive that investigators believe was used against the four ships in the attacks last month, the official said.

The Navy surveillance plane took extensive footage of the attached mine — which crew members on the Courageous also noticed after an initial explosion prompted the crew to evacuate the vessel.

Naval explosives experts were preparing Thursday to approach the stricken ship, to secure and to remove the mine, and examine it for clues about who attached it to the ship, the defense official said.

“Iran’s supreme leader has to carefully calibrate his response to Trump’s maximum pressure campaign,” said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, referring to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. “If he responds insufficiently he risks losing face. If he responds excessively he risks losing his head.”

Prompting a regional militia to attack an oil tanker would allow Iran to walk that line, he said, adding, “Tehran can maintain implausible deniability, spike the price of oil and impress upon U.S. allies in Europe, Asia and the Middle East that they will also pay a price for Trump’s pressure campaign.”

Mr. Pompeo and Mr. Bolton have led the Trump administration in taking a hard-line stand on Iran. In May 2018, President Trump withdrew from a nuclear containment deal that the Obama administration and world powers reached with Iran in 2015. The United States reimposed harsh sanctions on Iran last November.

European allies have stayed in the nuclear deal and have urged Iran to do so, but President Hassan Rouhani of Iran said last month that his country would start leaving parts of it, even though international agencies said Tehran had been abiding by all the terms until now.

Mr. Trump has said in recent weeks that he was open to negotiations with Iran, though he has made no effort to start talks. And he posted on Twitter on Thursday, after the Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe, made a visit to Tehran, that he thought it was “too soon to even think about making a deal.”
Well, they found their pretext for a war with Iran. Dog help us all.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

ex-khobar Andy
Posts: 5418
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:16 am
Location: Louisville KY as of July 2018

Re: Here we go, Gulf of Tonkin redux

Post by ex-khobar Andy »

While I'm not willing to say it wasn't Iran, I'm not sure what they would have to gain - Abe is in Iran as we speak - and I don't think that they want oil al over their coastline.

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Here we go, Gulf of Tonkin redux

Post by Scooter »

The purported rationale is ridiculous. It's far more likely to have been perpetrated by Saudi Arabia or Russia (with phony intelligence provided by same) in an attempt to get a gullible U.S. to believe it was Iran and launch a war against it.

Nor would I put it past this administration to have orchestrated the entire thing itself, to provide itself an excuse for war.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 8545
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: Here we go, Gulf of Tonkin redux

Post by Sue U »

I think Bibi's in the running for Most Likely Suspect, too.
GAH!

User avatar
Econoline
Posts: 9555
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans

Re: Here we go, Gulf of Tonkin redux

Post by Econoline »

There's always a tweet, ain't there?
  • *ALWAYS*
Image
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
God @The Tweet of God

wesw
Posts: 9645
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:24 am
Location: the eastern shore

Re: Here we go, Gulf of Tonkin redux

Post by wesw »

I wonder if the supreme leader was enjoying a nice piece of chocolate cake, imported from china, when the jap related tankers were hit......

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Here we go, Gulf of Tonkin redux

Post by Scooter »

I wonder what brand of champagne was being served when Pompeo and Bolton TRUMPed up this plan...
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

User avatar
Econoline
Posts: 9555
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans

Re: Here we go, Gulf of Tonkin redux

Post by Econoline »

Jim Wright asks the right question: Who benefits?

(Note that he does NOT answer the question but rather provides information necessary to analyze it; in the comments there seem to be 4 suspects mentioned most often: Russia, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the USA.)
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
God @The Tweet of God

ex-khobar Andy
Posts: 5418
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:16 am
Location: Louisville KY as of July 2018

Re: Here we go, Gulf of Tonkin redux

Post by ex-khobar Andy »

That footage does look pretty convincing. But I still do not understand what Iran would have to gain from it. Limpet mines are generally made to be approximately neutrally buoyant, so that a SCUBA equipped diver can attach it to the hull of the target typically below the waterline, thus effecting maximum damage. The footage shows the alleged mine a meter or two above the waterline on the damaged Japanese vessel. No diver would have the strength to raise it out of the water to that level, so I'm assuming it was attached the same way it was removed, by small craft.

wesw
Posts: 9645
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:24 am
Location: the eastern shore

Re: Here we go, Gulf of Tonkin redux

Post by wesw »

I think that the internal strife in iran demands a narrative shift, andy

the natives are restless

who would benefit?

alberta would benefit.

Canada , at the moment, imports Saudi oil to its east coast while forcing alberta to export its oil by not allowing pipelines to the east be built.

crazy.

if the strait of hormuz closes the US would not be effected in the same way it would have 10 yrs ago.

we have the oil we need, tho we lack refining capacity for lighter oil.

we need new refineries, and pronto.

china must be really worried right now.

I don t believe that we will war with iran, I do believe that Saudi will and that we are ok with that, encouraging and facilitating of that even

a tangled fucking web

I won t shed tears for Saudi, but I hope that the Iranians can throw off the shackles of their theocracy

the supreme leader is not loved

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Here we go, Gulf of Tonkin redux

Post by Lord Jim »

I'm not going to rule out the possibility that Iran is in fact responsible for these attacks, though I agree that given the fact that we are saddled with far and away the most dishonest President and Administration in American history. real proof should be required to justify any significant US military response. (It's also quite possible, given the way the Iranian regime is structured that the attacks could have been carried out by some faction...like the Revolutionary Guard, or the most radical elements within it...without central government approval.)
That footage does look pretty convincing.
I agree that video is pretty persuasive in showing how the attack was conducted, but I'd like to hear more about the proof tying that sabotage squad to the Iranian government...
But I still do not understand what Iran would have to gain from it.
Well, first, the Iranians would definitely benefit from the increased oil prices (which have been depressed lately) that are sure to result from the perception of a threat to the safe transport of the oil supply that moves through the Straits of Hormuz. (Of course the same could be said of Russia and Saudi Arabia...or Venezuela, or any other country largely reliant on the exportation of oil for its economic well-being)

Second, if they believed they could pull this off with the perception being that they were behind it, but without genuine proof that they were, they could believe that they could get American allies reliant on Mideast oil to pressure the US to ease sanctions on Iran...(That could very well be a miscalculation, but it's not illogical or implausible to believe that the Iranian regime could make such a miscalculation...)

As for the other countries mentioned as possible suspects:

I think Saudi Arabia would be the most likely candidate, because they have the leadership reckless enough to try such a gambit, and they would benefit not only from higher oil prices but also from having US military power being used against their number one regional foe. (Putin is certainly unscrupulous enough to pull something like this, but since he has been working hard to court the Iranian regime and coordinate their actions against US and Western interests, I find Russia to be less likely. )

I don't buy the idea that we did it, not because I think Trump would have any moral compunction whatsoever about authorizing some sort of fake flag operation like this if he thought it was in his best interest to do so, (in fact I'm sure he'd do it in a heartbeat) but I don't believe that our military command has become so corrupted that it would carry something like that out. (Plus there would have to be so many players involved, Trump would have to be worried that the facts would be sure to leak and the whole thing would blow up in face.)

As for the Israelis, I think the video footage pretty much rules them out. (An Israeli operation would never be that sloppy...)

If I had to bet, my money would have to be on not a central command from Hassan Rouhani or the Ayatollah, but some radical faction within the Iranian regime. operating semi-independently...

Particularly The Revolutionary Guard...they have the resources to pull something like this off, are reckless enough to do so, and within internal Iranian political dynamics definitely benefit from deteriorating relations and confrontation with the US...

And if that turns out to be the case, it would certainly be appropriate to hold the Iranian regime responsible because they created the Revolutionary Guard, and they have to be accountable for what it does...

But as I said at the beginning of this post, I'd like to see some more proof...
ImageImageImage

Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: Here we go, Gulf of Tonkin redux

Post by Big RR »

Jim--while I generally agree with your assessment, I disagree with this: "Trump would have to be worried that the facts would be sure to leak and the whole thing would blow up in face". I don't think he thinks that way; the man who once boasted he could shoot someone in broad daylight without any consequence truly believes he is somehow special and untouchable; if nothing else someone will always take the hit for such an "Uber man". I don't think he can conceive that something will "blow up in his face" as he has always had a wealthy dad and all that money can buy to prevent that.

ex-khobar Andy
Posts: 5418
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:16 am
Location: Louisville KY as of July 2018

Re: Here we go, Gulf of Tonkin redux

Post by ex-khobar Andy »

Well, first, the Iranians would definitely benefit from the increased oil prices (which have been depressed lately) that are sure to result from the perception of a threat to the safe transport of the oil supply that moves through the Straits of Hormuz.
Yes, I'm sure that the Iranians would like more for their oil; but the Saudis pump three times what they do. Not sure that they want their arch rivals to benefit so much more. But I agree that it's doubtful that it's a US operation.

ETA - my remark above about a diver putting it in place a couple of meters above the waterline - I have seen somewhere a comment that these limpet mines can weigh as little as 5 pounds. The one I saw them removing had to be more than that but it brings it into the possible range. But it's far more likely to have been attached by a small craft - don't these waterways have constant radar?

Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: Here we go, Gulf of Tonkin redux

Post by Big RR »

BTW, when they first talked about limpet mines, I couldn't help think of that stupid Don Knott's movie:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058230/

It's so bad, I'm surprised no one remade it. Just think, they could have used Jim Carey or John Candy or any of the other frenetic comedians.

User avatar
Guinevere
Posts: 8989
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:01 pm

Re: Here we go, Gulf of Tonkin redux

Post by Guinevere »

It’s just all too fucking convenient for certain war-mongering draft dodgers and assorted boot lickers. I say we stand pat.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké

rubato
Posts: 14213
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Here we go, Gulf of Tonkin redux

Post by rubato »

Japan has followed the US in boycotting Iranian oil. Japan imports 98% of their oil and is the next largest user after the US, China, and Russia and is already under pressure to begin importing Iran oil. Shinzo Abe was just visiting Iran, the first such visit in four decades. Japan is dependent on oil shipped through the straight of Hormuz. It is doubtful they could replace that source with another, given the volumes they require (esp. with a lot of their nuclear capacity still offline). I think the goal was to make Japan feel threatened by a lack of supply and split off support from the US. Part of the message might have been a warning of what would probably happen if tensions escalated to some military involvement.
...
The mines used were small enough that they set fire to, but did not sink the ships. Anyone with the resources to attach these mines could have sunk all of the ships if they wished so. Norwegian resistance fighters sunk ships the Germans were using that way. I think this was carefully calibrated to be the least violent means of achieving their ends.
...
Iran is in bad shape economically and the government is under pressure by the people to improve things. Selling oil to Japan would be a huge coup and Trump's general loathsomeness makes it easier for former allies to ignore US wishes.


yrs,
rubato

rubato
Posts: 14213
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Here we go, Gulf of Tonkin redux

Post by rubato »

btb, I'm not certain Iran did it, just showing how the pieces fit together in that theory.


yrs,
rubato

User avatar
Crackpot
Posts: 11265
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 2:59 am
Location: Michigan

Re: Here we go, Gulf of Tonkin redux

Post by Crackpot »

It seems to me that Trump is playing this “smart” (from his perspective) he’s painting his advisors as hawks while playing up the perception of being against military action but by telegraphing the actions he didn’t take sends the implied threats to Iran hoping to goad further action at which point he can claim to be pushed too far and into a large scale military response.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.

User avatar
RayThom
Posts: 8604
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:38 pm
Location: Longwood Gardens PA 19348

Here we go, Gulf of Tonkin redux

Post by RayThom »

Here's how I, a simple layman, reads it. I feel it's personal -- a Trump business decision.

Russia is the biggest ally of Iran, and China is very sensitive to the US sanctions placed against Iran. I have a strong feeling that most of Lord Dampnut's remaining wealth is tied up in tangled Russian and Chinese real estate deals. He can't retaliate for the downed drone without putting these Trump Organization holdings in jeopardy.

This non-military response makes him appear to be strong -- benevolent even -- but, in actuality, he is being covertly dictated to by his foreign interests. This is why the Orange Creamsicle is so determined not to reveal any financial information for fear of exposing incriminating financial ties.

Lord Dampnut and his advisors need to revisit the Iran Deal, and handle this diplomatically before it escalates any further.

This will surely be a talking point in the upcoming Democratic debates.
Image
“In a world whose absurdity appears to be so impenetrable, we simply must reach a greater degree of understanding among us, a greater sincerity.” 

Post Reply