Saudi oil attacks came from southwest Iran, U.S. official says, raising tensions

[webfact]

Saudi oil attacks came from southwest Iran, U.S. official says, raising tensions

By Phil Stewart and Parisa Hafezi

 

A satellite image showing damage to oil/gas Saudi Aramco infrastructure at Abqaiq, 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) - The United States believes the attacks that crippled Saudi Arabian oil facilities last weekend originated in southwestern Iran, a U.S. official told Reuters on Tuesday, an assessment that further increases tension in the Middle East.

 

Three officials, speaking to Reuters on condition of anonymity, said the attacks involved both cruise missiles and drones, indicating that they involved a higher degree of complexity and sophistication than initially thought.

 

The officials did not provide evidence or explain what U.S. intelligence they were using for the evaluations. Such intelligence, if shared publicly, could further pressure Washington, Riyadh and others to respond, perhaps even militarily.

 

Iran denies involvement in the strikes. Iran's allies in Yemen's civil war, the Houthi movement, claimed responsibility for the attacks. The Houthis say they struck the plants with drones, some of which were powered by jet engines.

 

U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday said it looked as if Iran - which has a long history of friction with neighbour Saudi Arabia - was behind the attacks.

 

The Saudis believe they can recover oil production within two to three weeks, sources close to the kingdom told Reuters, following a devastating weekend attack that knocked more than half of their production offline. Conway G. Gittens has more

 

But in a sign that U.S. allies remain unconvinced, French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said he was unsure if anyone had any evidence to say whether drones "came from one place or another."

 

Saudi Arabia sought to reassure markets after the attack on Saturday halved oil output, saying on Tuesday that full production would be restored by month's end.

 

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Tuesday ruled out talks with the United States unless the Trump administration returns to the nuclear accord between Iran and the West that the United States abandoned last year.

 

"Iranian officials, at any level, will never talk to American officials ... this is part of their policy to put pressure on Iran," Iranian state TV quoted him as saying.

 

Trump on Tuesday said he is not looking to meet Iranian President Hassan Rouhani during a U.N. event in New York this month.

 

U.S.-Iran relations deteriorated after Trump quit the nuclear pact and reimposed sanctions over Tehran's nuclear and ballistic programmes, severely hurting the Iranian economy. Trump also wants Iran to stop supporting regional proxies, including Yemen's Houthis.

 

Iran's clerical rulers openly support the Houthis, who are fighting a Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, but Tehran denies that it actively supports the Yemeni group with military and financial support.

 

Despite years of air strikes against them, the Houthi militia boasts drones and missiles able to reach deep into Saudi Arabia, the result of an armament campaign pursued and expanded energetically since Yemen's war began four years ago.

 

Strains between Washington and Tehran have risen more in recent months after attacks on tankers in the Gulf that the United States blames on Tehran, and Iran's downing of a U.S. military drone that prompted preparations for a retaliatory air strike that Trump says he called off at the last minute.

 

SAUDI DOUBTS

Saudi Arabia has asked international experts to join its investigation, which indicates the attacks did not come from Yemen, the Saudi foreign ministry said.

 

One of the three U.S. officials expressed confidence that Saudi Arabia's collection of materials following the attacks would yield "compelling forensic evidence ... that will point to where this attack came from."

 

A U.S. team is helping Saudi Arabia evaluate evidence from the attacks, which hit crucial facilities of Saudi state-owned oil company Aramco in Abqaiq and Khurais and initially cut Saudi oil production in half.

 

The Saudi energy minister said on Tuesday that the kingdom will achieve 11 million barrels per day (bpd) capacity by the end of September.

 

Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman also told a news conference that the world's top oil exporter would keep full oil supplies to customers this month.

 

He said Saudi Arabia would keep its role as the secure supplier of global oil markets, adding that the kingdom needed to take strict measures to prevent further attacks, which exposed the vulnerability of Saudi Arabia's oil industry and the broader global economy.

 

Oil prices fell 5% after the news that Saudi production is back, having surged more than 20% at one point on Monday - the biggest intra-day jump since the 1990-91 Gulf crisis over Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.

 

A day after warning that the United States was "locked and loaded" to respond to the Saudi incident, Trump dialed down his rhetoric, saying on Monday there was "no rush" to do so and that Washington was coordinating with Gulf Arab and European states.

 

"I'm not looking at options right now. We want to find definitively who did this," Trump said.

 

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was travelling to Saudi Arabia on Tuesday.

 

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the Iran nuclear pact, which European parties are trying to salvage, is one building block "we need to get back to".

 

Saudi Arabia, which has supported tougher U.S. sanctions on Iran, said an initial investigation showed the strikes were carried out with Iranian weapons.

Galip Dalay, a non-resident fellow at the Brookings Doha Center think tank, said the sophistication of the attacks and the fact such an operation would require high-level approval pointed at Tehran.

 

"Iran is essentially saying, 'If I can't get my oil into international markets, then no one should be able to do it'," he said. "They are basically looking to destabilise an international market that they have been cut out of by U.S. sanctions."

 

(This story makes clear in paragraphs 7 and 19 that full production is expected to be restored only by the end of September)

 

(Reporting by Parisa Hafezi and Steve Holland; Additional reporting by Reuters teams in London, Dubai, Washington, Riyadh, Cairo, Berlin, Paris, Singapore and New Delhi; Writing by Alistair Bell; Editing by Andrew Cawthorne and Howard Goller)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-09-18

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[555mike]

black knight to rooks 5, check? your move SA?

[sweatalot]

Good luck that Iran still has no nukes

[Tug]

Amazing that potus has so little credibility because of the constant lies I wonder if he is aware of it at least we haven’t bombed them yet

[Chomper Higgot]

“The officials did not provide evidence or explain what U.S. intelligence they were using for the evaluations.”

 

’nuff said.

[CGW]

I wonder how many that were directly involved had a "flutter" on the stock market yesterday - stinks of manipulation!

[CaptRon2]

2 hours ago, Tug said:

Amazing that potus has so little credibility because of the constant lies I wonder if he is aware of it at least we haven’t bombed them yet

I would have to tell you I find it rather ironic that you of all people would make a reference to  President Trump’s credibility. 

I can not think of anyone on this site who has made more incorrect statements than you have and the only time I saw you supply a reference it was incorrect. Your reply when called out about it was you are not computer savvy.

Please point out the specific lies President Trump has made In this article and include some legitimate references to support your argument.

[stevenl]

3 hours ago, CaptRon2 said:

I would have to tell you I find it rather ironic that you of all people would make a reference to  President Trump’s credibility. 

I can not think of anyone on this site who has made more incorrect statements than you have and the only time I saw you supply a reference it was incorrect. Your reply when called out about it was you are not computer savvy.

Please point out the specific lies President Trump has made In this article and include some legitimate references to support your argument.

Huh? You missed all Trump's lies, I think around 12,000 of them so far during his time in office?

[maxx58]

Here we go again!

The Ziocons and the deep state are looking to get the US into another endless war.

 

 

 

[NanLaew]

The back story maybe? Six days ago:

The promise of Chinese investment brings Iran in from the cold

https://www.trtworld.com/opinion/the-promise-of-chinese-investment-brings-iran-in-from-the-cold-29686

[Tchooptip]

There is no doubt the information comes from the same sources as for the massive destrucion weapons held by Sadam Hussein!

[PhonThong]

Why is President Hassan Rouhani, even allowed to come to New York? He should not be allowed to enter the U.S.. I don't care if the UN is in New York.  Would love to see that go elsewhere also. Cost the American taxpayer too much money.

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, sweatalot said:

Good luck that Iran still has no nukes

Worse luck that Trump wants to give the Saudis the capability to enrich uranium. Just what the world needs. Nuclear weapons in the hands of MbS.

[30la]

... and as always the Americans who with all their strength increase the tension in the Arab countries, expect another war that will give a boost to the American economy!

[Srikcir]

5 hours ago, webfact said:

Three officials

In the Trump administration that could be almost anybody like Kellyanne Conway* or any of the unpaid office occupants in the White House offices. The three could be the family troika: Ivanka, Junior and Jared.

 

*

https://twitter.com › hashtag › kellyanne

#Kellyanne Conway says it all: "#Trump Is Better Because He Doesn't 'Study' Situations Before Making Decisions"

[HLover]

5 hours ago, webfact said:

The officials did not provide evidence or explain what U.S. intelligence they were using for the evaluations.

Hopefully not the same intelligence that told about those pesky: 'weapons of mass destruction', many years ago...

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

“The officials did not provide evidence or explain what U.S. intelligence they were using for the evaluations.”

 

’nuff said.

 

Recently, Trump posted a very high-definition picture of a site within Iran. There was a bit of an outrage about him exposing means and sources. I would suggest that while it's fair enough to doubt statements not backed by public evidence, automatically dismissing them out of hand is off-mark as well.

[Morch]

29 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

In the Trump administration that could be almost anybody like Kellyanne Conway* or any of the unpaid office occupants in the White House offices. The three could be the family troika: Ivanka, Junior and Jared.

 

*

https://twitter.com › hashtag › kellyanne

#Kellyanne Conway says it all: "#Trump Is Better Because He Doesn't 'Study' Situations Before Making Decisions"

 

And do you honestly believe Reuters or any other major media outlet will go with such a story based on such sources? Or that any of the ones named above will contact media to leak the story?

[bristolboy]

4 hours ago, CaptRon2 said:

I would have to tell you I find it rather ironic that you of all people would make a reference to  President Trump’s credibility. 

I can not think of anyone on this site who has made more incorrect statements than you have and the only time I saw you supply a reference it was incorrect. Your reply when called out about it was you are not computer savvy.

Please point out the specific lies President Trump has made In this article and include some legitimate references to support your argument.

Trump says he didn't offer Iran a meeting without preconditions. He did, repeatedly.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/09/16/trump-says-he-didnt-offer-iran-meeting-without-preconditions-he-did/2341004001/

[Dumbastheycome]

In this modern militarized era of full real time satellite surveillance which undoubtedly is well focused on the  Middle East region I find it implausible that there is no definitive demonstrable record of the source and flight of multiple weapons such as missiles.

[CaptRon2]

35 minutes ago, jany123 said:

Proof read much?

I am only guessing but I would say the answer to your question is probably more than you contribute constructively to the discussions, but hey that’s just a guess.

[Fortean1]

The source for that teletype was the U.S. Embassy in Abu Dhabi.  It was one of many readdressals I did for the CC-1 (Communications Center) mailing list.  At that time we had a simulated teletype circuit that printed out teletypes letter by letter as the sound of a teletype played in the background.  The source was probably Wikileaks.

 

Terry in Thailand ( TiT )

[metisdead]

An off topic post and a reply has been removed.  

[khunken]

Some perspective on the usual US finger-pointing at Iran.

 

From a Reuters article on 16th Sept (published on TV):

The U.S. official, who asked not to be named, said on Sunday there were 19 points of impact in the attack on Saudi facilities and that evidence showed the launch area was west-northwest of the targets - the direction of Iraq and Iran - not south from Yemen.

 

As one perceptive poster pointed out no part of Iran is west-north-west of Dhahran (near where the oil-field hit is) but Israel is. Instead of shooting themselves in the foot, the US official is shooting a friend's foot.

 

It seems so difficult for some to believe that it is very possible for the Houthis to have acquired some highly lethal drones and fired them into SA. Considering the large number they have fired before and angered Saudi into more bombing of Yemen, this would be another escalated tit-for-tat response.

 

It's a great pity that the US refuses to scale down (or better stop) supporting the Saudi created disaster in Yemen. Even the UAE is havng second thoughts.

 

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, khunken said:

Some perspective on the usual US finger-pointing at Iran.

 

From a Reuters article on 16th Sept (published on TV):

The U.S. official, who asked not to be named, said on Sunday there were 19 points of impact in the attack on Saudi facilities and that evidence showed the launch area was west-northwest of the targets - the direction of Iraq and Iran - not south from Yemen.

 

As one perceptive poster pointed out no part of Iran is west-north-west of Dhahran (near where the oil-field hit is) but Israel is. Instead of shooting themselves in the foot, the US official is shooting a friend's foot.

 

It seems so difficult for some to believe that it is very possible for the Houthis to have acquired some highly lethal drones and fired them into SA. Considering the large number they have fired before and angered Saudi into more bombing of Yemen, this would be another escalated tit-for-tat response.

 

It's a great pity that the US refuses to scale down (or better stop) supporting the Saudi created disaster in Yemen. Even the UAE is havng second thoughts.

 

 

The comment from regarding the WNW bit was addressed on that topic.

 

Quote

Flight path of many (if not most) cruise missiles can be programmed. With later models, it can be altered during flight as well. Assuming the WNW direction reference was correct, it would make sense to try and steer clear of the Gulf due to higher chances of detection (plus covering obvious tracks). Knowing where and how air defenses were positioned would have been factored in as well.

https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1123583-evidence-from-saudi-oil-attack-points-to-iran-not-yemen-us-official/page/4/?tab=comments#comment-14574153

 

The same would apply for UAVs (especially those with enough range and payload bearing capabilities).

 

As for the Houthis acquiring advanced drones, it's possible. But it would then raise the question of where they got them from and how. The most likely source would still be Iran - and then it would be "supplied", rather than acquired. If adding the scale and complexity of the attack, it's somewhat doubtful that the Houthis managed to pull this off without any outside assistance whatsoever. 

 

[khunken]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

The comment from regarding the WNW bit was addressed on that topic.

 

https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1123583-evidence-from-saudi-oil-attack-points-to-iran-not-yemen-us-official/page/4/?tab=comments#comment-14574153

 

The same would apply for UAVs (especially those with enough range and payload bearing capabilities).

 

As for the Houthis acquiring advanced drones, it's possible. But it would then raise the question of where they got them from and how. The most likely source would still be Iran - and then it would be "supplied", rather than acquired. If adding the scale and complexity of the attack, it's somewhat doubtful that the Houthis managed to pull this off without any outside assistance whatsoever. 

 

Usual attempt to 'correct' a post not fitting your agenda.

 

No, the article about the alleged missiles said that the 'launch site' was WNW - anything subsequent is just an effort to twist what the originator was reported in saying. Neither has any report I've read claimed that the Houthis didn't have outside assistance - straw man.

 

It is more than possible that the Houthis have acquired (bought or given doesn't matter) powerful drones from Iran. That's not rocket science. As the Saudis need US assistance with their bombing campaign in Yemen, the Houthis may well have Iranian assistance (training?) with their drones.

 

So far the attack has been labeled a drone attack by the Houthis in the Thai media. That's what it will remain until proven otherwise.

[Morch]

30 minutes ago, khunken said:

Usual attempt to 'correct' a post not fitting your agenda.

 

No, the article about the alleged missiles said that the 'launch site' was WNW - anything subsequent is just an effort to twist what the originator was reported in saying. Neither has any report I've read claimed that the Houthis didn't have outside assistance - straw man.

 

It is more than possible that the Houthis have acquired (bought or given doesn't matter) powerful drones from Iran. That's not rocket science. As the Saudis need US assistance with their bombing campaign in Yemen, the Houthis may well have Iranian assistance (training?) with their drones.

 

So far the attack has been labeled a drone attack by the Houthis in the Thai media. That's what it will remain until proven otherwise.

 

It is nice to see how some posters place full trust in the accuracy of reports when it fits, while taking up opposite positions on other occasions.

 

Not quite sure how "straw man" applies, guess you just tossed it in for good measure. And again, amusing to see the double standard - the USA often claimed to be responsible and complicit with regard to Saudi Arabia's attacks on Yemen, but apparently the same may not be applied to Iran's aid for the Houthis.

 

If this was a Houthi attack, then it might imply Iran significantly stepped up its involvement and support, by providing them with such means.

 

[Mavideol]

9 hours ago, NanLaew said:

The back story maybe? Six days ago:

The promise of Chinese investment brings Iran in from the cold

https://www.trtworld.com/opinion/the-promise-of-chinese-investment-brings-iran-in-from-the-cold-29686

that says it all but Iran will pay a very high price for that.... Chinese mentality VS Iran-Persia mentality hummm??? they will clash soon enough

[khunken]

17 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

It is nice to see how some posters place full trust in the accuracy of reports when it fits, while taking up opposite positions on other occasions.

 

Not quite sure how "straw man" applies, guess you just tossed it in for good measure. And again, amusing to see the double standard - the USA often claimed to be responsible and complicit with regard to Saudi Arabia's attacks on Yemen, but apparently the same may not be applied to Iran's aid for the Houthis.

 

If this was a Houthi attack, then it might imply Iran significantly stepped up its involvement and support, by providing them with such means.

 

Yes it's not unusual for posters to attempt to twist their posts to fit their agenda - yours is a prime example.

 

Yes, too the 'double standard' of not comparing a supporter of a group defending its country against outside interference with one bombing them, supported by another with the worst record of destroying countries in the middle east & nearby - is absolutely shocking.

 

Seems your long-standing attempts to rewrite recent history in the region has been added to by a rewrite of the meaning of 'double standards'.

[bristolboy]

25 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

It is nice to see how some posters place full trust in the accuracy of reports when it fits, while taking up opposite positions on other occasions.

 

Not quite sure how "straw man" applies, guess you just tossed it in for good measure. And again, amusing to see the double standard - the USA often claimed to be responsible and complicit with regard to Saudi Arabia's attacks on Yemen, but apparently the same may not be applied to Iran's aid for the Houthis.

 

If this was a Houthi attack, then it might imply Iran significantly stepped up its involvement and support, by providing them with such means.

 

Into false equivalency much? It's not a matter of "claiming" the US to be responsible for Saudi Arabia's attacks on Yemen. It is responsible for Saudi attacks on Yemen. Unless you think that the US Congress' 4 bipartisan attempts vetoed by Trump to stop the US from selling weapons to the Saudis were based solely on unproven allegations.