Saudi seeks oil supply protection as U.S. and Iran face off

[rooster59]

Saudi seeks oil supply protection as U.S. and Iran face off

By Asma Alsharif

 

FILE PHOTO: An oil tanker is seen after it was attacked at the Gulf of Oman, in waters between Gulf Arab states and Iran, June 13, 2019. ISNA/Handout via REUTERS

 

DUBAI (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia called for swift action to secure Gulf energy supplies and joined the United States in blaming Iran for attacks on two oil tankers in a vital shipping route that have raised fears of broader confrontation in the region.

 

Thursday's tanker attacks in the Gulf of Oman exacerbated the antagonistic fallout from similar blasts in May that crippled four vessels. Washington, already embroiled in a standoff with Iran over its nuclear programme, has blamed Tehran and Saudi Arabia's crown prince also accused Iran on Saturday.

 

Iran has denied any role in the strikes on the tankers south of the Strait of Hormuz, a major transit route for oil from Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest crude exporter, and other Gulf producers.

 

Saudi Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih said there must be "a rapid and decisive response to the threat" to energy supplies, market stability and consumer confidence, his ministry said on Twitter.

 

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, in an interview with Saudi-owned newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat, blamed Iran and called on the international community to take a "decisive stand" against the attacks.

 

"The kingdom does not want a war in the region but it will not hesitate to deal with any threats to its people, its sovereignty, or its vital interests," the crown prince said.

 

The U.S. military released a video on Thursday that it said showed Iran's Revolutionary Guards were behind the explosions that damaged the Norwegian-owned Front Altair and the Japanese-owned Kokuka Courageous.

 

"Iran did do it and you know they did it because you saw the boat," U.S. President Donald Trump told Fox News on Friday.

 

The United States has tightened sanctions on Iran since Washington withdrew from a 2015 nuclear pact between Tehran and global powers last year. Washington's stated aim is to drive Iranian oil exports, the mainstay of its economy, to zero.

 

Tehran has said that if its oil exports were halted, it could block the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow channel of water separating Iran and Oman through which passes a fifth of the oil consumed globally.

 

ENERGY SECURITY

 

Oil prices have climbed 3.4% since Thursday's attacks. Ship insurers said insurance costs for ships sailing through the Middle East have jumped by at least 10%.

 

Saudi Arabia's energy minister said in Japan at a meeting of energy ministers from the G20 group of nations that the kingdom is committed to ensuring stability of global oil markets.

 

Japanese Industry Minister Hiroshige Seko said ministers agreed on the need to "work together to deal with the recent incidents from (an) energy security point of view."

 

Trump, who pulled the United States out of the nuclear deal under which world powers agreed to ease international sanctions on Iran in return for curbs on Tehran's nuclear work, said any move to close the Strait of Hormuz would not last long.

 

He also said he was open to holding talks with Iran, although Tehran said it had no plans to negotiate with the United States unless it reversed a decision on the nuclear deal.

 

Tehran and Washington have both said they have no interest in a war. But this has done little to assuage concerns that the arch foes could stumble into conflict.

 

A U.S. official told Reuters a surface-to-air missile was fired from Iranian territory on Thursday morning at a U.S. drone that was near Front Altair following the attack on the tanker. The missile did not hit the drone, the official said.

 

Acting U.S. Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan said the United States was "planning various contingencies" when asked if more military forces would be sent to the area, but added that the focus was on building an international consensus.

 

"We also need to broaden our support for this international situation," he told reporters on Friday.

 

CALLS FOR RESTRAINT

 

As well as blaming Iran for the tanker attacks, Washington has said Tehran was behind May 14 drone strikes on two Saudi oil-pumping stations. Tehran has denied all those charges.

 

Britain has backed the United States in blaming Iran for the tanker attacks. On Saturday, Iran summoned the British ambassador to complain about its "unacceptable stance," ISNA news agency reported.

 

Other nations have urged caution. Germany said the video released by the U.S. military was not enough to prove Iran's role, while U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called for an independent investigation to determine responsibility.

 

China and the European Union called for restraint.

 

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani renewed Iran's threat to continue scaling back compliance with the nuclear deal unless other signatories to the pact show "positive signals".

 

He did not specify what Iran wanted in his comments to a meeting of Asian leaders in Tajikistan.

 

France and other European signatories to the nuclear deal have said they wanted to save the accord. But many of their companies have cancelled deals with Tehran, under pressure from the United States.

 

(Additional reporting by Michele Kambas in Nicosia, Nazarali Pirnazarov in Dushanbe, Yuka Obayashi in Karuizawa; Writing by Edmund Blair and Bill Trott; Editing by Andrew Cawthorne and Daniel Wallis)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-06-16

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

 

 

[rabas]

16 minutes ago, rooster59 said:

"The kingdom does not want a war in the region but it will not hesitate to deal with any threats to its people, its sovereignty, or its vital interests," the crown prince said.

 

Not hesitate to deal with any threats. "Yo, America ... "

 

[Chomper Higgot]

Saudi Arabia, one of the most heavily (non nuclear) armed nations on the planet, asking for protection.

[Tug]

Well let’s take a quick look at what donalds Middle East policy has accomplished He’s got Iran refining plutonium on a larger scale they were abiding by the previous agreement got oil prices on the rise on the brink of a new war has allied us to the whabi the most viscous of the Muslim sects wants to give them nuke plants oh did I mention Palestine looks like our navy will be on escort duty soon better that than war are you tired of winning yet?

[sammieuk1]

Is there going to be war or a killer tweet ????

[steven100]

be careful Iran ... if he starts firing tweets it can be devastating

[jany123]

5 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Saudi Arabia called for swift action to secure Gulf energy supplies 

I bet lifting oil sale restrictions on Iran would be one action that would achieve the desired result, but what would be the fun in that, and how would the body bag industry benefit?

 

wait one... Body bags are made out of petroleum by products. Lower oil prices would make them cheaper to produce.

 

oh... right... but peace and stability would decrease the demand for body bags.

 

Yep.... its quite obvious why I’m not in charge, but for those with cash at hand, here’s a few companies that might be worth investing in.

 

[Srikcir]

4 hours ago, Tug said:

He’s got Iran refining plutonium on a larger scale they were abiding by the previous agreement

It's uranium 238, not plutonium 239.

Plutonium is produced by fast breeder reactors, none of which Iran has.

In the past Iran has sold enriched uranium to Russia who likely will buy any new surplus.

On the other hand POTUS Trump doesn't seem too concerned with unmonitored uranium production by North Korea (who has threatened the US with nuclear weapons) explicitly for expanding its weapons program.

[HappyinNE]

Why should it be only the US insuring the oil flows?  Last time I looked it was a lot of other countries that needed the oil, not the US.  Where are the rest of these users? 

Past time to get them heavily involved.

[Whip]

I suspect Bokton and the CIA are behind this  

[stevenl]

21 minutes ago, HappyinNE said:

Why should it be only the US insuring the oil flows?  Last time I looked it was a lot of other countries that needed the oil, not the US.  Where are the rest of these users? 

Past time to get them heavily involved.

USA caused this mess, sort it out yourself.

[from the home of CC]

be interesting to see a few Russian ships in there to protect Iran's interests, they may be a member of the SCO soon..

[Pedrogaz]

I think this was a false flag.

The video is phoney....it is totally grainy and how does anyone know it is a mine....it might be a piece of shrapnel...or the Iranians might be taking something as evidence to show how actually made and supplied the mine (if it was a mine).

The attack makes no sense for Iran as it was totally embarrassing for them as it happened while Rouhani was meeting with the PM from Japan who is the mediating the conflict.

Using Occam's razor...I would say the most likely perpetrators were Saudi or the UAE, as they hate Iran and stand to gain by discrediting them.

Finally how does John Bolton and Mike Pompeo know, immediately (or within minutes of the event) that it was Iran. This has all the hall marks of a false flag, although this time not necessarily of the CIA or Pentagon's doing. Whatever it has done, it has turned up the heat on Iran and a\made it much more likely that a conflict will occur. It is pretty obvious that Iran does not want a conflict...look what has happened to other leaders (apart from Assad) that the US doesn't like...they get murdered.

[stevenl]

32 minutes ago, Pedrogaz said:

I think this was a false flag.

The video is phoney....it is totally grainy and how does anyone know it is a mine....it might be a piece of shrapnel...or the Iranians might be taking something as evidence to show how actually made and supplied the mine (if it was a mine).

The attack makes no sense for Iran as it was totally embarrassing for them as it happened while Rouhani was meeting with the PM from Japan who is the mediating the conflict.

Using Occam's razor...I would say the most likely perpetrators were Saudi or the UAE, as they hate Iran and stand to gain by discrediting them.

Finally how does John Bolton and Mike Pompeo know, immediately (or within minutes of the event) that it was Iran. This has all the hall marks of a false flag, although this time not necessarily of the CIA or Pentagon's doing. Whatever it has done, it has turned up the heat on Iran and a\made it much more likely that a conflict will occur. It is pretty obvious that Iran does not want a conflict...look what has happened to other leaders (apart from Assad) that the US doesn't like...they get murdered.

Agree with you, except for your claim it doesn't make sense for Iran. It makes a lot of sense for them to show they are no walkover, and USA should watch its steps.

[jany123]

2 hours ago, HappyinNE said:

Why should it be only the US insuring the oil flows?  Last time I looked it was a lot of other countries that needed the oil, not the US.  Where are the rest of these users? 

Past time to get them heavily involved.

A lot of other countries?

 

would that be the countries that told trump not to act unilaterally in reimposing sanctions on Iran, as it was in full compliance with an agreement designed to lift sanctions.?

 

would that be the countries trying to get the trump to once again lift its sanctions, to restore the fragile peace and stability that the agreement the trump broke had provided?

 

would that be the countries that the trump is ignoring?

 

And, would these countries need to actually do anything at all, if the trump lifted the sanctions?

 

the trump is directly responsible for this mess, by trashing an agreement that took years to reach, and he can fix this mess with a simple wave of his crayon.

 

but... I fully agree. It is high time that these other countries do get heavily involved... by unequivocally demanding that the trump removes its unilateral sanctions, and uses diplomacy instead of economic terrorism to resolve any lingering issues it has over the original deal.

 

it is absolutely amazing to me that we need to look to the mad mullahs in Tehran for moderation, in the hopes that the leader of the free world doesn’t goad them into a war that is totally unwarranted and unnecessary 

[IAMHERE]

Let the ones who buy mideast oil take handle of the problem, leave America out of it. America has all it can handle as it is.

[jany123]

12 hours ago, rooster59 said:

The U.S. military released a video on Thursday that it said showed Iran's Revolutionary Guards were behind the explosions that damaged the Norwegian-owned Front Altair and the Japanese-owned Kokuka Courageous.

 

4 hours ago, Pedrogaz said:

I think this was a false flag.

The video is phoney....it is totally grainy and how does anyone know it is a mine....it might be a piece of shrapnel...or the Iranians might be taking something as evidence to show how actually made and supplied the mine (if it was a mine).

The attack makes no sense for Iran as it was totally embarrassing for them as it happened while Rouhani was meeting with the PM from Japan who is the mediating the conflict.

Using Occam's razor...I would say the most likely perpetrators were Saudi or the UAE, as they hate Iran and stand to gain by discrediting them.

Finally how does John Bolton and Mike Pompeo know, immediately (or within minutes of the event) that it was Iran. This has all the hall marks of a false flag, although this time not necessarily of the CIA or Pentagon's doing. Whatever it has done, it has turned up the heat on Iran and a\made it much more likely that a conflict will occur. It is pretty obvious that Iran does not want a conflict...look what has happened to other leaders (apart from Assad) that the US doesn't like...they get murdered.

Cat.... meet pigeons.

 

At times like this, the world needs a decent bit of investigative journalism and a renowned award winning publisher with the guts to reveal the truth to the world, and the will to shoulder the ire of the behemoth that is the deceitful United States government, who have historically played fast and loose with the truth, to further there war mongering ends in their endeavor to effect yet another regime change.

 

Someone like mr Julian Assange and his Wikileaks publishing house, might be up to the challenge. Everyone else would probably sit back and wait out the declassification of official secrets to reveal the truth, but it’s at times like this, when war is imminent, and potential untruths abound from players with hidden agendas, that the world needs a hero like Assange.

[jany123]

7 minutes ago, IAMHERE said:

Let the ones who buy mideast oil take handle of the problem, leave America out of it. America has all it can handle as it is.

Mmmm... yes... but

 

The US gets 11% of its oil imports from Saudi Arabia, and is actively meddling in the markets from which the rest of the world relies upon to source the oil they need.

 

trade wars trade wars, so simple to understand and so easy to win.

[Salerno]

12 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Saudi Arabia, one of the most heavily (non nuclear) armed nations on the planet, asking for protection.

Just because you have a lot of toys doesn't mean you can play with them properly.

[Morch]

6 hours ago, Pedrogaz said:

I think this was a false flag.

The video is phoney....it is totally grainy and how does anyone know it is a mine....it might be a piece of shrapnel...or the Iranians might be taking something as evidence to show how actually made and supplied the mine (if it was a mine).

The attack makes no sense for Iran as it was totally embarrassing for them as it happened while Rouhani was meeting with the PM from Japan who is the mediating the conflict.

Using Occam's razor...I would say the most likely perpetrators were Saudi or the UAE, as they hate Iran and stand to gain by discrediting them.

Finally how does John Bolton and Mike Pompeo know, immediately (or within minutes of the event) that it was Iran. This has all the hall marks of a false flag, although this time not necessarily of the CIA or Pentagon's doing. Whatever it has done, it has turned up the heat on Iran and a\made it much more likely that a conflict will occur. It is pretty obvious that Iran does not want a conflict...look what has happened to other leaders (apart from Assad) that the US doesn't like...they get murdered.

 

The video is grainy, and it's not too clear it shows what it's supposed to be showing. That said, I don't think that the Iranians outright denied this was an Iranian vessel, nor did they claim anything about evidence (you just made this bit up). If Iran had any conclusive evidence it was a set-up or something, it would broadcast the details.

 

It is true that on the face of it, the timing raises doubts as to Iran's complicity. Then again, it's also good cover. Assuming that such operations always go as planned is a myth. A lot could go wrong, and the end result is not always as intended. For me this more strongly relates in case the video is genuine.

 

I think the USA intelligence services may have information on Iranian vessel movements in the area before, during and after the attack. Some coverage by drones and satellites as well. As to Bolton and Pompeo going public too fast with too little, nothing new there - even if there's something to back it up.

 

Iran is not interested in a full scale confrontation with the USA. But getting things heated up a bit before sitting down to negotiate? Possibly. If it's a major international crisis which includes a credible threat to tanker movement in and out of the Gulf - there will be more pressure to agree on something. Anything.

[Krataiboy]

12 hours ago, steven100 said:

be careful Iran ... if he starts firing tweets it can be devastating

There's lots of other stuff he can fire. See here:

[bristolboy]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Let's see. Iran. Attacks on tankers. Yep, pretty much relevant, I think. Or at least, as relevant as bringing up other historical instances, as in the post I replied to (and many others).

 

And yes, addressed your other "point" on other topics. They-started-it isn't much of an argument. Nor does it excuse Iran's actions. If you need some extra icing, there are them threats to block the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran sometimes issues.

 

Just citing "Attacks on tankers" without context isn't enough. And with context, the situation is revealed to be quite different to what obtains today. By your way of thinking, just citing acts in isolation, what acts of war could be justified?

 

[jany123]

Iran attacks, or Iran retaliates when attacked? Surely if it’s a retaliation for an attack, it would be expected and accepted by every international norm

 

Anyway, Iran claims sovereignty over a large part of the straits of Hormuz, much as other countries maintain claims to their adjacent waters... so perhaps they have the right to deny shipping in their territorial waters.

 

And... Perhaps international flagged shipping could pay a transit fee to sail in these waters, which would afford them the rights of passage they take for granted (or by threat of force).

[Morch]

10 minutes ago, jany123 said:

Iran attacks, or Iran retaliates when attacked? Surely if it’s a retaliation for an attack, it would be expected and accepted by every international norm

 

Anyway, Iran claims sovereignty over a large part of the straits of Hormuz, much as other countries maintain claims to their adjacent waters... so perhaps they have the right to deny shipping in their territorial waters.

 

And... Perhaps international flagged shipping could pay a transit fee to sail in these waters, which would afford them the rights of passage they take for granted (or by threat of force).

 

No, an attack on a tanker wouldn't be accepted "by every international norm" - not if initiated, and not as supposed retaliation.

 

Iran may not block the Strait of Hormuz at will. And you may want to read up a bit about fees related to shipping lines etc.

 

If all else fails, there are always them "international courts" mentioned in another topic.

 

[metisdead]

A troll post containing a trolling representation of Trump's name has been removed.  For clarification, trolling representations of Obama's name were not allowed when Obama was the President, therefore the same applies while Trump is President.  Also,  troll posts containing trolling representations of the Republican party will be removed as well as the replies.  The same apples to members posting trolling representations of the Democratic party.  

 

 

Some petty back and forth bickering posts and replies have now been removed. 

[arithai12]

9 hours ago, HappyinNE said:

Why should it be only the US insuring the oil flows?  Last time I looked it was a lot of other countries that needed the oil, not the US.  Where are the rest of these users? 

Past time to get them heavily involved.

What's going on against Iran has nothing to do with oil, which was flowing all right including from Iran. It has all to do with keeping the most important US industry active, which is war. That's the major assignment of each US president and secretary of state, past and present.

 

[HuskerDo]

Gee Saudis, with all the oil wealth why not trying to protect yourself? Step up and quit relying on others (the US). Weak, weak, weak!! Sad. 

[metisdead]

Some more posts and replies relating to US-Iraq/Gulf of Tonkin/Gulf of Mexico etc., have been removed.