Evidence from Saudi oil attack points to Iran, not Yemen - U.S. official

[Morch]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

There may be more, but afaik the difference is that a drone is remotely controlled.

 

Depending on make and tech, both cruise missiles and drones can be remotely controlled. And in the same way, some can be pre-programed with regard to flight path and target acquisition.

[ExpatOilWorker]

11 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Those who claimed responsibility for it are heavily supported by Iran. Unless mistaken, their attack on SA facilities, up to this point, were of a lesser degree and sophistication - both in terms of means used and range involved.

 

Assuming they managed to develop the tech by themselves or upgrade existing platforms is somewhat doubtful. I don't think Iran would have supplied the means without being  aware of the intended target (or even marking it).

 

Similarly, if it was, indeed, an attack launched from Iraq, it was probably carried out by this or that proxy militia.

Could also be that the Houthis got some drones from China and a bit of tech support from Iran.

 

https://fpif.org/china-is-flooding-the-middle-east-with-cheap-drones

[Morch]

39 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Not deflecting at all (at least not on my side).

If this US administration wishes to engage in military action against Iran, something it is cannot legally do without a UN resolution, then the credibility of US claims are a matter of significance.

 

You could have made this point without resorting to the tired WMD argument (included in your deleted post). So yes, deflecting and then some.

[Morch]

40 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I have no doubts that you know a thing or 2 about world politics, and it's always a pleasure to read your informed opinion, but i have to inform you that the attitude of Europeans towards US has changed a lot in the last 20 or 30 years.

That's not to say, obviously, that America or Israel are wrong and the rest of the countries are right, world politics is more complex than that.

I am not so silly to speak for the masses, i just listen to what the people say, and i stay suspicious about the power games of the big economies.

 

And again, you do not represent any masses. Pretending otherwise, or trying these mass co-opting bits is not much of an argument.

 

I doubt that there's anything resembling a general European attitude regarding all things US. Considering pretty much any "European" topic on this forum routinely features at least two opposed factions, the unity of mind suggested is....interesting.

 

Pitting the USA and Israel in one corner and the "rest of the countries" on the other is about as simplistic and contrived as it gets. But it does go well with that "we" beat.

[Morch]

48 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.

 

 

Show us the evidence.

 

What do you consider to be "extraordinary"?

[Morch]

46 minutes ago, BestB said:

Why would US use this incident as a pretext to war? No mention of such intention . Iran is the only one responding with statement of readiness for full pledged war.

 

if anyone is going to respond or act it would be Saudi 

 

So Trump's "locked and loaded" bit was....what?

[Morch]

44 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’ve made a decades long living out of oil refineries, their control, reliability and resilience. I have a wide experience in refinery fires and fire protection systems.

 

1. Those vessels were never on fire, their deluge systems were not activated. Maybe they were empty or maybe they were never penetrated.

 

2. The power systems, switching stations and substations are a) easily identifiable, b) extremely vulnerable and c) critical to plant availability.

 

Four ‘direct hits’ no inferno, go figure.

 

Maybe the intention wasn’t to cripple the plant.

 

 

 

I don't think that the power systems, switching stations and substations are quite as easily identifiable from the air, and not at the attack angle required. Certainly not as easy as these, anyway.

 

As said, I don't think that the intention was to "cripple the plant". More like sending out a message. Kinda similar to those tankers attacked in the Gulf. None were sunk, none were spectacularly damaged. This can be construed as several things, it would seem we disagree on this score.

 

 

 

 

[mauGR1]

10 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

And again, you do not represent any masses. Pretending otherwise, or trying these mass co-opting bits is not much of an argument.

 

I doubt that there's anything resembling a general European attitude regarding all things US. Considering pretty much any "European" topic on this forum routinely features at least two opposed factions, the unity of mind suggested is....interesting.

 

Pitting the USA and Israel in one corner and the "rest of the countries" on the other is about as simplistic and contrived as it gets. But it does go well with that "we" beat.

No need to carry on with the "we" thing, i thought i made it clear that i speak for myself, and i was just trying to explain to you the meaning of "we", in another post, just because you asked.

Back on topic, so do you think that "false flag attacks" never happened in history, or that the US never resorted to them, or that this is not a case of false flag attack.

I admit that i would be surprised if you admit the possibility of a false flag attack, tbh.

[Why Me]

There's politics to the timing. Trump's begin begging for a meeting with Rouhani on the sidelines of UNGA. Rouhani's playing hard to get.

 

This attack, if not launched by Iran, was surely abetted by them. My guess is that it was to give Rouhani the edge at a meeting with Trump, which he will agree to now.

 

Reason: US and the West need SA oil/gas to keep flowing for their energy supplies to not collapse (sure the US is self-sufficient but the economies are interlocked). And the less said about the SA military the better. Sure, if you get too close to MBS he will slice you up with a butcher's knife but beyond that SA even recruits Pakistani mercenaries to quell internal dissent.

 

So basically what Rouhani is saying is "I've got nothing to lose. There's not much else you can sanction. But I'm going to reach across the Strait and grab SA's balls and squeeze and squeeze until you all get back to the negotiating table."

[Morch]

41 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Yes I agree, Iranian supplied organisation attacks SA, completely in alignment with Iran supplying other organisations elsewhere.

 

But that’s not an Iranian attack and it’s not a policy of supplying belligerent organisations that is restricted to Iran, not by a long way its not.

 

Putting aside aversions to conspiracies.

 

I would argue against the "not an Iranian attack" part. That's pretty much the whole point of setting up these non-state agents to begin with. Allows Iran to distance itself when it suits etc. Choosing to accept Iran's narrative and position on relations with various proxies is a choice.

 

There are various degrees of Iranian involvement with various outfits. But one thing that I'm rather sure of is that higher quality/impact arms and systems are not handed to just any of them, and not without some sort of oversight. Certainly training.

 

I don't think that currently, there's any other country quite matching Iran's proxy setup efforts. Or achieving nearly as much success doing so.

[Morch]

49 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

Could also be that the Houthis got some drones from China and a bit of tech support from Iran.

 

https://fpif.org/china-is-flooding-the-middle-east-with-cheap-drones

 

I kinda doubt China would have much interest in driving oil prices up. Or increasing ME instability. Additionally, the link provided relates a Chinese drone deal with Saudi Arabia and and factory set up .

 

Can one get the required spec drones on Alibaba and have them shipped to Yemen?

[BestB]

30 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

So Trump's "locked and loaded" bit was....what?

rhetoric.

[GreasyFingers]

16 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I would argue against the "not an Iranian attack" part. That's pretty much the whole point of setting up these non-state agents to begin with. Allows Iran to distance itself when it suits etc. Choosing to accept Iran's narrative and position on relations with various proxies is a choice.

 

There are various degrees of Iranian involvement with various outfits. But one thing that I'm rather sure of is that higher quality/impact arms and systems are not handed to just any of them, and not without some sort of oversight. Certainly training.

 

I don't think that currently, there's any other country quite matching Iran's proxy setup efforts. Or achieving nearly as much success doing so.

Do you really believe everything you have written. From this end it sounds like a State Department stooge.

Good to know that you think the US does not match "Iran's proxy setup".

[Morch]

14 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

No need to carry on with the "we" thing, i thought i made it clear that i speak for myself, and i was just trying to explain to you the meaning of "we", in another post, just because you asked.

Back on topic, so do you think that "false flag attacks" never happened in history, or that the US never resorted to them, or that this is not a case of false flag attack.

I admit that i would be surprised if you admit the possibility of a false flag attack, tbh.

 

Some false flag attacks and operations are real. Most alleged ones aren't. The USA resorted to them in the past (with the caveat above). So did other countries. Claiming an attack is a false flag operation is not uncommon, and sometimes constitutes part of disinformation and counter psyops campaigns.

 

I don't think that the current attack was a false flag one. But given that it's the Middle East, I could be wrong. One issue with carrying false flag attacks is that you need to keep the fact secret. That's harder to do these days, and all the more so in this region. Then there's the less than obvious point to it - going on about "wanting war" is not particularly compelling. Ignoring that there are various possible beneficiaries, and focusing solely on those fitting a paradigm doesn't come off as informed or objective.

 

My impression is that some posters are bent on crying "false flag" on every half plausible opportunity.

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, BestB said:

rhetoric.

 

Whereas Iran really meant it. Gotcha.

[Dumbastheycome]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

So, other than going on about the usual "deep state" nonsense you're basically down to making it all the USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia's fault. As if Iran doesn't have it's own policies, and as if these policies do not involve aggression, meddling and messing about with other in the region.

 

Granted, what passes for USA foreign policy, especially in the ME, and especially under Trump, is nothing to write home about. That by itself doesn't imply other countries should not be held accountable for their own actions and policies.

In the above summary  you  do not provide any more verifiable  absolution of the USA, Saudi Arabia or Israel in this event nor have you in rebuttal of  many other expressions of opinion  that are in open speculative opinion no less valid than "official" declarations of  blame have been!

It can not be denied that Iran has it's  own policies which are counter to those with their own  murderous intent. In the propagandist realm of the "good and the bad" is the world not permitted to comment by way of personal opinion and appraisal of  events  with no genuine evidence  presented ?

Or are "we" supposed to succumb to the  bald statement  of accusation by  the agent of a "benevolent" administration that has  major interest in  promoting the  accusation?

"We" do  not ignore the equivalent route  to the illegitimate  war  on Iraq !

Any  can ask  questions. Can you  provide  answers  to your  own?

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, GreasyFingers said:

Do you really believe everything you have written. From this end it sounds like a State Department stooge.

Good to know that you think the US does not match "Iran's proxy setup".

 

And from this end sounds like you're a common variety troll. Nothing of substance to address points made. Not even a single factual reference.

 

Proxy, in the sense used, was applied to non-state organizations. The USA mostly supports governments. If you're not clued in on the difference, do some reading.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

In the above summary  you  do not provide any more verifiable  absolution of the USA, Saudi Arabia or Israel in this event nor have you in rebuttal of  many other expressions of opinion  that are in open speculative opinion no less valid than "official" declarations of  blame have been!

It can not be denied that Iran has it's  own policies which are counter to those with their own  murderous intent. In the propagandist realm of the "good and the bad" is the world not permitted to comment by way of personal opinion and appraisal of  events  with no genuine evidence  presented ?

Or are "we" supposed to succumb to the  bald statement  of accusation by  the agent of a "benevolent" administration that has  major interest in  promoting the  accusation?

"We" do  not ignore the equivalent route  to the illegitimate  war  on Iraq !

 

 

Could you possibly phrase your posts in a less convulsed manner? It's a pain to follow your points, such as they are.

 

You too, do not speak for any "we".

[metisdead]

Some off topic trolling posts have been removed.

 

A post with an offensive Nazi reference has been removed as well as a reply. 

 

Another offensive troll post has been removed. 

[GreasyFingers]

18 minutes ago, Morch said:

And from this end sounds like you're a common variety troll. Nothing of substance to address points made. Not even a single factual reference.

My beat was people, not politics. Listened to thousands of people over the years so making assessments of what they say, or write, comes naturally. Don't get many wrong these days.

[Morch]

Just now, GreasyFingers said:

My beat was people, not politics. Listened to thousands of people over the years so making assessments of what they say, or write, comes naturally. Don't get many wrong these days.

 

Well, if I was your imaginary boss, then judging by your latest effort, I'd ask for a review of all them imaginary assessments.

 

 

 

[surangw]

oil market manipulation the wrong way

 

[rabas]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’ve made a decades long living out of oil refineries, their control, reliability and resilience. I have a wide experience in refinery fires and fire protection systems.

 

1. Those vessels were never on fire, their deluge systems were not activated. Maybe they were empty or maybe they were never penetrated.

 

2. The power systems, switching stations and substations are a) easily identifiable, b) extremely vulnerable and c) critical to plant availability.

 

Four ‘direct hits’ no inferno, go figure.

 

Maybe the intention wasn’t to cripple the plant.

Four ‘direct hits’ no inferno, go figure.

 

I don't know much about refineries but am pretty good at chemistry as I am a chemical physicist. Guessing, I would say the struck tanks look more like high pressure process vessels than storage tanks because of their complex connections and shape. Simple storage tanks are seen elsewhere. Here are some clear and zoomable images. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-16/photos-that-show-how-attack-crippled-saudi-arabia-s-oil-output

 

From wiki:  However, a moderate to severe attack on Abqaiq would slow production from an average of 6.8 million barrels (1,080,000 m3) a day to 1 million barrels (160,000 m3). The chief purpose of Abqaiq is to remove hydrogen sulfide from crude oil and reduce the vapor pressure, making the crude safe to be shipped in tankers. Abqaiq is the world's largest facility for this stabilization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abqaiq 

 

So one assumes the tanks are part of the H₂S removal process. For a few reasons, blowing holes in a process pressure vessel might not cause a big oil fire but would certainly disrupt processing, maybe for a long time as the tanks would be made of special not corrosive materials and require special welding, etc. Elsewhere in the plant you can see they hit chemical processing stacks, further destroying the process capability.

 

Who ever did this knew what they were hitting, how hit precise targets, and not be detected, at least not well enough to get shot down. It was a professional job. Not quite Houthi level.

 

[FritsSikkink]

13 hours ago, BestB said:

Why would you say ready to go to war if you are innocent ? 

 

Maybe because the USA is keep coming with bogus arguments to invade them and take their oil, like they did in Iraq, Syria, Libya and for minerals in Afghanistan?

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

Maybe because the USA is keep coming with bogus arguments to invade them and take their oil, like they did in Iraq, Syria, Libya and for minerals in Afghanistan?

 

Do you see enough USA forces deployed to carry out any such "invasion"?

Did the USA "take" Iraq, Syria and libya's oil?

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, GreasyFingers said:

Do you really believe everything you have written. From this end it sounds like a State Department stooge.

Good to know that you think the US does not match "Iran's proxy setup".

Naw, more an Israeli state department stooge.

[SteveB2]

14 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s called playing to the home front politics.

 

How about the US presenting some credible proof to back the administration’s accusations, though problems with credibility might be a problem.

 

 

 

It would be a mistake to under estimate the Persian/Iranian involvement in this matter.

 

Along time ago, I personally worked with Iranian researchers studying radio, electronics & microwave systems for the development of the new Iranian cruise missile systems at Birmingham University in 1981, after Khomeini became Supreme Leader of the country in December 1979.

 

So you here are the logical decisions that need to be made:-

• Some goat loving Yemeni's developed it >>> or the Iranians. 
• It was launched off the back of a camel 1,000Km away in Houthi controlled territory in North-West Yemen >>>or it was lanched somewhat closer.

For a better technical analysis that I agree with, see the link below:-

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/16/yemen-houthis-claim-responsibility-for-saudi-oil-field-attacks

[bendejo]

So there was explosions in Saudi oilfields. 

And if the attack came from another country the USA is prepared to attack the aggressor.

Is the US military a mercenary force hired by the Saudis?  Shades of the first Iraq war there, when the client was Kuwait.

And this from a US regime that leans heavily towards isolationism.

 

 

[bristolboy]

8 minutes ago, SteveB2 said:

 

It would be a mistake to under estimate the Persian/Iranian involvement in this matter.

 

Along time ago, I personally worked with Iranian researchers studying radio, electronics & microwave systems for the development of the new Iranian cruise missile systems at Birmingham University in 1981, after Khomeini became Supreme Leader of the country in December 1979.

 

So you here are the logical decisions that need to be made:-

• Some goat loving Yemeni's developed it >>> or the Iranians. 
• It was launched off the back of a camel 1,000Km away in Houthi controlled territory in North-West Yemen >>>or it was lanched somewhat closer.

 

For a better technical analysis that I agree with, see the link below:-

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/16/yemen-houthis-claim-responsibility-for-saudi-oil-field-attacks

Clearly you missed the very informative link someone posted in this thread, It leads to a long and detailed article about how the Chinese are selling advanced military drones all around the world. To nations that the USA won't sell to. It's not an either/or situation.

[jm91]

22 hours ago, Tug said:

Anything coming from the trump administration I take with a grain of salt sadly that’s what you get when you are a chronic lyre show us the proof and if it was Iran do you think they would have done it if (you) had honored the agreement that was in place?

I agree. The current president lies constantly so I have a hard time believing him or his representatives.