Trump says he does not want war after attack on Saudi oil facilities

[webfact]

Trump says he does not want war after attack on Saudi oil facilities

By Steve Holland and Rania El Gamal

 

A satellite image showing damage to oil/gas Saudi Aramco infrastructure at Khurais, in Saudi Arabia in this handout picture released by the U.S Government September 15, 2019. U.S. Government/DigitalGlobe/Handout via REUTERS

 

WASHINGTON/DUBAI (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Monday said it looked like Iran was behind attacks on oil plants in Saudi Arabia but stressed he did not want to go to war, as the attacks sent oil prices soaring and raised fears of a new Middle East conflict.

 

Iran has rejected U.S. charges it was behind the strikes on Saturday that damaged the world's biggest crude-processing plant and triggered the largest jump in crude prices in decades.

 

Relations between the United States and Iran have deteriorated since Trump pulled out of the Iran nuclear accord last year and reimposed sanctions over Tehran's nuclear and ballistic programs. Washington also wants to pressure Tehran to end its support of regional proxy forces, including in Yemen where Saudi forces have been fighting Iran-backed Houthis for four years.

 

U.S. President Donald Trump said on Monday that it looked like Iran was responsible for attacks over the weekend on Saudi Arabian oil plants. Rough Cut (no reporter narration).

 

The United States was still investigating if Iran was behind the Saudi strikes, Trump said, but "it's certainly looking that way at this moment."

 

Trump, who has spent much of his presidency trying to disentangle the United States from wars he inherited, made clear, however, he was not going to rush into a new conflict on behalf of Saudi Arabia.

 

"I'm somebody that would like not to have war," Trump said.

 

Several U.S. Cabinet members, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Energy Secretary Rick Perry, have blamed Tehran for the strikes. Pompeo and others will travel to Saudi Arabia soon, Trump said.

 

A day after saying the United States was "locked and loaded" to respond to the incident, Trump said on Monday there was "no rush" to do so.

 

"We have a lot of options but I'm not looking at options right now. We want to find definitively who did this," he said.

 

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said the strikes were carried out by "Yemeni people" retaliating for attacks by a Saudi-led military coalition in a war with the Houthi movement.

 

"Yemeni people are exercising their legitimate right of defense," Rouhani told reporters during a visit to Ankara.

 

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi called the allegations "unacceptable and entirely baseless."

 

The attacks cut 5% of world crude oil production.

 

Oil prices surged by as much as 19% after the incidents but later came off their peaks. The intraday jump was the biggest since the 1990-91 Gulf crisis over Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

 

The market eased from its peak after Trump said he would release U.S. emergency supplies and producers said there were enough stocks stored up worldwide to make up for the shortfall. Prices were around 12% higher by afternoon in the United States.

 

SAUDI SUSPICIONS

Saudi Arabia said the attacks were carried out with Iranian weapons, adding that it was capable of responding forcefully and urging U.N. experts to help investigate the raid.

 

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said Iranian threats were not only directed against the kingdom but against the Middle East and the world.

 

While the prince did not directly accuse Tehran, a Foreign Ministry statement reported him as calling on the international community to condemn whoever was behind the strike.

 

"The kingdom is capable of defending its land and people and responding forcefully to those attacks," the statement added.

 

Saudi Arabia and Iran have been enemies for decades and are fighting a number of proxy wars.

 

Trump said he had not made commitments to protect the Saudis.

 

"No, I haven't promised Saudis that. We have to sit down with the Saudis and work something out," he said. "That was an attack on Saudi Arabia, and that wasn't an attack on us. But we would certainly help them."

 

Two sources briefed on state oil company Saudi Aramco's operations told Reuters it might take months for Saudi oil production to return to normal. Earlier estimates had suggested it could take weeks.

 

Saudi Arabia said it would be able to meet oil customers' demand from its ample storage, although some deliveries had been disrupted. At least 11 supertankers were waiting to load oil cargoes from Saudi ports, ship tracking data showed on Monday.

 

RISING TENSIONS

Tension in the oil-producing Gulf region has dramatically escalated this year after Trump imposed severe U.S. sanctions on Iran aimed at halting its oil exports altogether.

 

For months, Iranian officials have issued veiled threats, saying that if Tehran is blocked from exporting oil, other countries will not be able to do so either. But Iran has denied a role in specific attacks, including bombings of tankers in the Gulf and previous strikes claimed by the Houthis.

 

U.S. allies in Europe oppose Trump's "maximum pressure" strategy, arguing that it provides no clear mechanism to resolve issues, creating a risk the enemies could stumble into war.

 

Trump has said his goal is to force Iran to negotiate a tougher agreement and has left open the possibility of talks with Rouhani at an upcoming U.N. meeting. Iran says there can be no talks until Washington lifts sanctions.

 

U.N. Yemen envoy Martin Griffiths told the U.N. Security Council on Monday it was "not entirely clear" who was behind the strike but he said it had increased the chances of a regional conflict.

 

But the U.S. ambassador to the world body, Kelly Craft, said emerging information on the attacks "indicates that responsibility lies with Iran" and that there is no evidence the attack came from Yemen.

 

Iran's Yemeni allies have promised more strikes to come. Houthi military spokesman Yahya Sarea said the group carried out Saturday's predawn attack with drones, including some powered by jet engines.

 

"We assure the Saudi regime that our long arm can reach any place we choose and at the time of our choosing," Sarea tweeted. "We warn companies and foreigners against being near the plants that we struck because they are still in our sights."

 

U.S. officials say they believe that the attacks came from the opposite direction, possibly from Iran itself rather than Yemen, and may have involved cruise missiles. Wherever the attacks were launched, however, they believe Iran is to blame.

 

The attacks have raised questions about how the kingdom, one of the world's top spenders on weaponry, much of it supplied by U.S. companies, was unable to protect oil plants from attack.

 

Sensing a commercial opening, President Vladimir Putin said Russia was ready to help Saudi Arabia by providing Russian-made air defense systems to protect Saudi infrastructure.

 

Russia and China said it was wrong to jump to conclusions about who was to blame for the attack on Saudi Arabia.

 

(Reporting by Steve Holland in Washington and Rania El Gamal in Dubai; Writing by William Maclean, Mike Collett-White and Doina Chiacu; Editing by Alistair Bell and Peter Cooney)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-09-17

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

 

[bendejo]

13 minutes ago, webfact said:

"I'm somebody that would like not to have war," Trump said.

[...]

A day after saying the United States was "locked and loaded" to respond to the incident, Trump said on Monday there was "no rush" to do so.

 

If war, it has to be a victory and not last very long (like Grenada) so he can campaign on his heroism.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

Russia and China said it was wrong to jump to conclusions about who was to blame for the attack on Saudi Arabia.

 

Not so unreasonable.

[LomSak27]

Trump talks a great game but If he wanted war, he would not have cut Bolton loose. More sanctions, get France in line, get the euros in with the sanction program etc etc. It's good for him.

 

And I would be surprised to find that the Mad Mullahs did not do this. They play the Nationalism game too. Kidnapping British Tankers, telling the US to shovel it. It's all good ................. tell it's not

 

 

[sammieuk1]

Men in turbans will continue to blow things up until sanctions are lifted????

[Sujo]

Must make the trump supporters head spin.

 

Hes locked and loaded....they all agree hes the best. Bomb iran.

 

Oh maybe not, we dont want to do it.....yes donald right move dont do it.

 

 

[Tug]

If Donald dident want war why did he break the treaty and try to strangle their country?kkinda tends to <deleted> people off when they can’t feed their family’s and take care of their sick 

[stevenl]

I do believe him when he says he doesn't want war.

 

But he is not the right man for the job, and at least partially responsible for the mess in the first place.

[OneMoreFarang]

1 minute ago, Tug said:

If Donald dident want war why did he break the treaty and try to strangle their country?kkinda tends to <deleted> people off when they can’t feed their family’s and take care of their sick 

Do you think Donald and his supporters are able to see the connection? I doubt it.

 

He does not even remember what he tweeted yesterday. And people still vote for that guy to be their leader. It would be funny if it wouldn't be so sad.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, sammieuk1 said:

Men in turbans will continue to blow things up until sanctions are lifted????

 

Things got blown up way before sanctions were in place. Things will get blown up long after the sanctions will be lifted.

[Morch]

40 minutes ago, Tug said:

If Donald dident want war why did he break the treaty and try to strangle their country?kkinda tends to <deleted> people off when they can’t feed their family’s and take care of their sick 

 

Sanctions aren't war. They are means to apply pressure without going to war. And as much as some may object to them, they are preferable to the real thing. Iran was under international sanctions for a long while, prior to Trump taking office. Was the international community seeking war with Iran back then? Or were they just means to pressure Iran into meeting its obligations?

[OneMoreFarang]

49 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Imagine Iran would not have breached the NPT to begin with. There would have been no related sanctions, no need for the JCPOA and most everyone would trade with them.

 

As for "everything would be peaceful" - guess you imagine that Iran's regional actions and meddling stem from Trump's policies, whereas in fact, they predated his term in office. If you wish to see Iran's regional actions and policies as having much to do with "peaceful", guess you live in an alternative reality.

 

Trump being ___________________ (fill in the blank) doesn't imply all the Middle East's troubles are of his own making, or that all other actors are harmless and innocent. Granted, he doesn't help things one bit, but assuming all would be well otherwise is way off mark.

I didn't write Trump is the only one to blame.

But fact is Obama and the other international leaders made a deal with Iran. And Iran followed that deal to the letter. They didn't enrich uranium anymore and they didn't work on any nuclear weapon. International inspectors confirmed all this.

 

And then Trump breached the contract. And then Trump put harsh sanctions on Iran.

Did Trumps action make the situation better or worse?

Did Trump expect that the Iranians just do anything he wants? Why should they?

It's like Trump kicking a dangerous dog again and again. And then Trump and the rest of the word is surprised that the dog doesn't like it.

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I didn't write Trump is the only one to blame.

But fact is Obama and the other international leaders made a deal with Iran. And Iran followed that deal to the letter. They didn't enrich uranium anymore and they didn't work on any nuclear weapon. International inspectors confirmed all this.

 

And then Trump breached the contract. And then Trump put harsh sanctions on Iran.

Did Trumps action make the situation better or worse?

Did Trump expect that the Iranians just do anything he wants? Why should they?

It's like Trump kicking a dangerous dog again and again. And then Trump and the rest of the word is surprised that the dog doesn't like it.

 

Your post was essentially this - if Trump wouldn't have quit the deal all would have been well.

How is this not solely focused on Trump, I don't know.

 

That you consistently insist on ignoring or glossing over how and why the JCPOA came to into being, and what preceded it, doesn't lend your posts much credibility. Same goes for avoiding anything that relates to Iran's own regional policies and actions.

 

I'm not arguing Trump's actions improved things. Far from it. Said on many posts it was a stupid move. That still doesn't make your comment any less narrow-visioned, or relating to the whole picture.

 

After managing to repeat Trump's name seven times in about the same number of lines, your initial denial is all the more amusing.

[jvs]

Trump does not want a war,Kim will love this!!!

Expect more missiles to fly soon.

[bristolboy]

16 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I didn't write Trump is the only one to blame.

But fact is Obama and the other international leaders made a deal with Iran. And Iran followed that deal to the letter. They didn't enrich uranium anymore and they didn't work on any nuclear weapon. International inspectors confirmed all this.

 

And then Trump breached the contract. And then Trump put harsh sanctions on Iran.

Did Trumps action make the situation better or worse?

Did Trump expect that the Iranians just do anything he wants? Why should they?

It's like Trump kicking a dangerous dog again and again. And then Trump and the rest of the word is surprised that the dog doesn't like it.

 

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Your post was essentially this - if Trump wouldn't have quit the deal all would have been well.

How is this not solely focused on Trump, I don't know.

 

That you consistently insist on ignoring or glossing over how and why the JCPOA came to into being, and what preceded it, doesn't lend your posts much credibility. Same goes for avoiding anything that relates to Iran's own regional policies and actions.

 

I'm not arguing Trump's actions improved things. Far from it. Said on many posts it was a stupid move. That still doesn't make your comment any less narrow-visioned, or relating to the whole picture.

 

After managing to repeat Trump's name seven times in about the same number of lines, your initial denial is all the more amusing.

Nonsense. There is nothing in OneMoreFarang's comment that suggests anything like the Pollyanna attitude you imply or that there were no problems previous to the agreement. He simply stated that the deal was working and Trump's actions have made a mess of things. With the exception of a few players like Israel and the Saudis, it's clear that most of the world subscribes to that view.

[Jack Mountain]

"Trump says he does not want war after attack on Saudi oil facilities"

 

Attack more! Maybe he even wants peace then ....

[Srikcir]

8 hours ago, webfact said:

Trump says he does not want war after attack on Saudi oil facilities

However,

Trump indicated that the Saudis may have to pay if the US launches military action.

"The Saudis are going to have a lot of involvement in this if we decide to do something. They'll be very much involved, and that includes payment,"

http://lite.cnn.io/en/article/h_15def9b08faa6bf2093e0c9cbba809b5

Seems Trump wants to make the American military a mercenary force.

[RoadWarrior371]

8 hours ago, Sujo said:

Must make the trump supporters head spin.

 

Hes locked and loaded....they all agree hes the best. Bomb iran.

 

Oh maybe not, we dont want to do it.....yes donald right move dont do it.

 

 

As an observer, it seems perhaps his strategy is working.... to keep the Idiots guessing?

[sirineou]

9 hours ago, stevenl said:

I do believe him when he says he doesn't want war.

 

But he is not the right man for the job, and at least partially responsible for the mess in the first place.

All trump wants is to get re-elected and run down the clock on the statute of limitations. and will do whatever he things will give him the best chance to do that.

[from the home of CC]

let em' rip Iran, you're on a roll! and don't look for an American spanking, the next one you get has Israel's name all over it - and how ironic is that going to be, the KSA being avenged by the Israelis...   

[bristolboy]

18 minutes ago, from the home of CC said:

let em' rip Iran, you're on a roll! and don't look for an American spanking, the next one you get has Israel's name all over it - and how ironic is that going to be, the KSA being avenged by the Israelis...   

So you've given up on Trump?

[sherwood]

2 hours ago, RoadWarrior371 said:

As an observer, it seems perhaps his strategy is working.... to keep the Idiots guessing?

All it does is keep sane people thinking he is an idiot.

[metisdead]

A post containing a trolling meme and a reply has been removed. 

 

A troll post of a profane nature has been removed as well as the replies. 

[Dumbastheycome]

4 hours ago, Srikcir said:

However,

Trump indicated that the Saudis may have to pay if the US launches military action.

"The Saudis are going to have a lot of involvement in this if we decide to do something. They'll be very much involved, and that includes payment,"

http://lite.cnn.io/en/article/h_15def9b08faa6bf2093e0c9cbba809b5

Seems Trump wants to make the American military a mercenary force.

While the US declines to  specify the location of upwards of  40,000 military personnel  it can only  lead to speculation !

[from the home of CC]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

So you've given up on Trump?

 Mr. Trump won't take the chance of direct action adversely affecting his election chances and as this whole conflict is proxy based anyways, Israel involved is almost poetic. All bets will be off though if Iran is stupid enough to directly attack the Americans, imo wouldn't happen anyways unless it was an error.. 

[usviphotography]

On 9/16/2019 at 10:06 PM, stevenl said:

I do believe him when he says he doesn't want war.

 

But he is not the right man for the job, and at least partially responsible for the mess in the first place.

He's not the right man for the job, but he's the best we could get. That pretty much sums up the Trump Presidency and why he won in 2016 and why he'll probably get one more term. Trump is a transitional figure. The first American President to offer the Neocons push back, but he's not really competent enough to translate that opposition in to effective policy. The only concrete thing Trump has been able to do is keep us out of getting in to new wars. But Trump is pushing the Overton Window to the point where it is conceivable to imagine a more competent non-interventionist candidate winning in 2024.  

[bristolboy]

13 hours ago, from the home of CC said:

 Mr. Trump won't take the chance of direct action adversely affecting his election chances and as this whole conflict is proxy based anyways, Israel involved is almost poetic. All bets will be off though if Iran is stupid enough to directly attack the Americans, imo wouldn't happen anyways unless it was an error.. 

If he didn't want to take that chance why escalate tensions in the Gulf region in the first place?

[from the home of CC]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

If he didn't want to take that chance why escalate tensions in the Gulf region in the first place?

He obviously didn't think that far ahead before he acted, his main focal point was undoing what Obama had done. This man is ego driven and his isn't very healthy, hence the overcompensation with irrational actions and the insane twittering into the night..

 

 

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, from the home of CC said:

He obviously didn't think that far ahead before he acted, his main focal point was undoing what Obama had done. This man is ego driven and his isn't very healthy, hence the overcompensation with irrational actions and the insane twittering into the night..

 

 

I think - and it's only speculation - he got suckered by Bolton and Pompeo who assured him that Iran would succumb to the combined pressure of economic sanctions and increased us military presence. Whether through a willingness to negotiate or being overthrown by an angry and deprived populace. Bolton and Pompeo both knew this was unlikely but figured that once Trump found himself in a tight place he would have no choice but to engage in military action. So far he's disappointed them.

[from the home of CC]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I think - and it's only speculation - he got suckered by Bolton and Pompeo who assured him that Iran would succumb to the combined pressure of economic sanctions and increased us military presence. Whether through a willingness to negotiate or being overthrown by an angry and deprived populace. Bolton and Pompeo both knew this was unlikely but figured that once Trump found himself in a tight place he would have no choice but to engage in military action. So far he's disappointed them.

I agree, he has surrounded himself with mostly buffoons when you compare the personnel makeup with past administrations. imo Iran got a lot more dangerous when it was increasingly backed into a corner like a wounded animal. But I do believe the original decision to trash the agreement in place was because a real president had put it there. He has suffered with comparisons to Obama since he has been in office and I believe, with the fragile ego, that it has bothered him greatly. He wants to leave his own mark on history during his presidency though it increasingly looks like it will be a black one.