United States sending troops to bolster Saudi defences after attack

[rooster59]

United States sending troops to bolster Saudi defences after attack

By Phil Stewart and Idrees Ali

 

U.S. President Donald Trump holds a joint news conference with Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison in the East Room of the White House in Washington, U.S., September 20, 2019. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday approved sending American troops to bolster Saudi Arabia's air and missile defences after the largest-ever attack on the kingdom's oil facilities, which Washington has squarely blamed on Iran.

 

The Pentagon said the deployment would involve a moderate number of troops - not numbering thousands - and would be primarily defensive in nature. It also detailed plans to expedite delivery of military equipment to both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

 

Reuters has previously reported that the Pentagon was considering sending anti-missile batteries, drones and more fighter jets. The United States is also considering keeping an aircraft carrier in the region indefinitely.

 

"In response to the kingdom's request, the president has approved the deployment of U.S. forces, which will be defensive in nature and primarily focused on air and missile defence," U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper said at a news briefing.

 

"We will also work to accelerate the delivery of military equipment to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the UAE to enhance their ability to defend themselves."

 

The Pentagon's late Friday announcement appeared to close the door to any imminent decision to wage retaliatory strikes against Iran following the attack, which rattled global markets and exposed major gaps in Saudi Arabia's air defences.

 

Trump said earlier on Friday that he believed his military restraint so far showed "strength," as he instead imposed another round of economic sanctions on Tehran.

 

"Because the easiest thing I could do, 'Okay, go ahead. Knock out 15 different major things in Iran.' ... But I’m not looking to do that if I can," Trump told reporters at the White House.

 

But the deployment could further aggravate Iran, which has responded to previous U.S. troop deployments this year with apprehension. It denies responsibility for the attack on Saudi Arabia.

 

Yemen's Iran-aligned Houthi movement, which has been battling a Saudi-led military coalition that includes the UAE, has claimed responsibility for the strikes.

 

ATTACK LAUNCHED FROM IRAN?

 

Relations between the United States and Iran have deteriorated sharply since Trump pulled out of the Iran nuclear accord last year and reimposed sanctions on its oil exports.

 

For months, Iranian officials issued veiled threats, saying that if Tehran were blocked from exporting oil, other countries would not be able to do so either.

 

However, Iran has denied any role in a series of attacks in recent months, including bombings of tankers in the Gulf and strikes claimed by the Houthis.

 

U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, have fingered southwest Iran as the staging ground for the attack, an assessment based at least in part on still-classified imagery showing Iran appearing to prepare an aerial strike.

 

They have dismissed Houthi claims that the attacks originated in Yemen.

 

One of the officials told Reuters the strike may have been authorized by Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

 

The United States is wary of getting dragged into another conflict in the Middle East. It has troops positioned in Syria and Iraq, two countries where Iranian influence is strong and Iran-backed forces operate openly.

 

U.S. officials fear Iran's proxies might attempt to strike American troops there, something that could easily trigger a broader regional conflict.

 

Saudi Arabia has said it was attacked by a total of 25 drones and missiles, including Iranian Delta Wing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) and "Ya Ali" cruise missiles.

 

U.S. Marine General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said officials were still hammering out the best array of capabilities to defend Saudi Arabia, noting the difficulty combating a swarm of drones.

 

"No single system is going to be able to defend against a threat like that, but a layered system of defensive capabilities would mitigate the risk of swarms of drones or other attacks that may come from Iran," Dunford said.

 

(Reporting by Phil Stewart, Idrees Ali, Eric Beech and Mohammad Zargham Editing by Chizu Nomiyama and Cynthia Osterman)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-09-21

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[CGW]

Or in other words - securing their interests! lets just forget about dead journalists, the fact they still behead ~300 people a year & that no form of political opposition is allowed! Don't even consider women's "rights" - just don't go there! ???? 

[ezzra]

Shutting to barn's dores after the horses have bolted... with all the mega billions the Saudis spent on arming themselves with the state of art weaponry money can buy, a lowly drone has managed to penetrate their defenses, will not be surprised if few heads will roll there soon...

[CharlieBri]

1 hour ago, CGW said:

Or in other words - securing their interests! lets just forget about dead journalists, the fact they still behead ~300 people a year & that no form of political opposition is allowed! Don't even consider women's "rights" - just don't go there! ???? 

As retired U.S. Military, this is such <deleted>. Saudi Arabia, is not a true friend of the U.S. They have a large military of their own, which the U.S. equipped. So is the U.S  positioning itself so it can have an excuse to get directly involved in this mess. One has to wonder, did the missiles really come from Iran?

[bristolboy]

Remember Trump's promise to disengage militarily from the Mideast?

[wabothai]

Probably part of the weapon deal. Maintenance and training troops are sent as a result of total failure of SA airdefense systems delivered by the US. Cover-up?

[Morch]

2 hours ago, CharlieBri said:

As retired U.S. Military, this is such <deleted>. Saudi Arabia, is not a true friend of the U.S. They have a large military of their own, which the U.S. equipped. So is the U.S  positioning itself so it can have an excuse to get directly involved in this mess. One has to wonder, did the missiles really come from Iran?

 

How does the main body of the post relate the ending question?

 

16 minutes ago, wabothai said:

Probably part of the weapon deal. Maintenance and training troops are sent as a result of total failure of SA airdefense systems delivered by the US. Cover-up?

Cover up how?

 

[Rimmer]

Giant meme removed, this is a discussion forum not twitter, sms messaging or facebook

[from the home of CC]

the Saudis need someone to hold their hands in the dark, basically that's all this is..

[55Jay]

4 hours ago, CGW said:

Or in other words - securing their interests! lets just forget about dead journalists, the fact they still behead ~300 people a year & that no form of political opposition is allowed! Don't even consider women's "rights" - just don't go there! ???? 

Absolutely!  Iran would be a much more wholesome ally for the US. 

[CGW]

8 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

Absolutely!  Iran would be a much more wholesome ally for the US. 

Iran was your ally - remember? ya'll installed the Shah with full backing, then it went tits up.

Israel wouldn't allow you to befriend Iran now though, so forget it! 

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, CGW said:

Iran was your ally - remember? ya'll installed the Shah with full backing, then it went tits up.

Israel wouldn't allow you to befriend Iran now though, so forget it! 

 

Whereas the current regime in Iran would like nothing more than to be the USA's bestest friend. Sure.

As for Iran being a solid, reliable and easily managed ally - guess Russia could say a few choice words on this. When it comes to partners of lesser stature, more like a poisoned chalice.

 

It's one thing to say Saudi Arabia is a problematic ally, quite a leap to cast Iran as a good one.

 

As for the last bit, I seem to recall the JCPOA coming about despite Israel's Prime Minister's efforts (in which he was acting against advice by heads of intelligence services and the military). Similarly, Trump's repeated overtures and expressed interest in negotiation with Iran, or his reluctance to militarily engage, do not quite support your POV.

[30la]

This is the beginning of the next war in an already unstable region because of the Amis!
Congratulations Mr. Donald Trump!

[wabothai]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

How does the main body of the post relate the ending question?

 

Cover up how?

 

Covering up the fact that the air defensee system delivered by the US failed miserably (losing face) by sending troops.  Troops to defend SA or repair the defense system? there is a difference.

[CGW]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

Whereas the current regime in Iran would like nothing more than to be the USA's bestest friend. Sure.

Where on earth do you get the idea that I support Iran? all I was stating was that the US supports those who are able to give them cash! - corporate US rules!  to get down to the basics. The current regime in Iran ousted the US supported Shah due to his massive corruption, so obviously the US aint the flavour of the day there. You can try to defend the US and its relations but your never going to succeed! They supported Sadam until the plan changed, they are currently supporting the murderous dictator in Egypt, the list is endless.

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, wabothai said:

Covering up the fact that the air defensee system delivered by the US failed miserably (losing face) by sending troops.  Troops to defend SA or repair the defense system? there is a difference.

 

There were quite a few references about this even on OPs and links appearing in this topic. So wouldn't know how "cover up" comes into it. Whether it was Saudi incompetence, systems failing or the other side just winning this one are questions which will probably take a while figuring out. Doubtful that all findings will be made public. Whether one wishes to construe this as "cover up" or protecting vital information is a choice.

 

As far as I understand, they will by more air-defenses (with the accompanying troops) deployed. Systems getting reviewed, tweaked and modified following this couldn't be called anything but expected. I'm sure some people were already starting to pack their bags when the news hit, knowing they'll likely be sent to KSA for this.

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, CGW said:

Where on earth do you get the idea that I support Iran? all I was stating was that the US supports those who are able to give them cash! - corporate US rules!  to get down to the basics. The current regime in Iran ousted the US supported Shah due to his massive corruption, so obviously the US aint the flavour of the day there. You can try to defend the US and its relations but your never going to succeed! They supported Sadam until the plan changed, they are currently supporting the murderous dictator in Egypt, the list is endless.

 

By following the topic and noting what people post, or how they react to other posts. Not too hard. As for supporting Iran? Not so much as having issues with the USA (quite apparent from your post above, if there was a doubt about it).

 

Going on about the Shah is all very well, but he's been ousted 40 years ago. Corruption? The current Iranian regime is at least as corrupt and oppressive as the Shah's rule was.

 

Defending the US and its relations? More like accepting that countries and governments operate more to the tune of interests (which isn't necessarily a bad word) rather than morals. I just think that it applies all around whereas some tend to focus almost exclusively on the same shortlist.

[Emdog]

Brilliant idea, bunch more "infidels" in their "holy land". Do recall that bin Laden's reasons included keeping infidel troops in Saudi after first Iraq war.

Trump has bragged about all the weapons US sells to Saudis. Don't defend them, better let them use those weapons to defend selves. Turn over that inventory! Think of the orders that could roll in!

[JemJem]

2 misogynst and dictatorial (or say 'semi-dictatorial', if you wish) regimes have been playing with fire, and the US (and some other Western powers) has been openly siding with one and threatening war on the other. Hmmm, let's see where all this will lead to ????

[metisdead]

A conspiracy post has been removed as well as the replies. 

[Tug]

Those whabi Muslim won’t be happy about this isent that the pretext they used to justify attacking the World Trade Center?doesent anyone advise Donald?

[candide]

13 minutes ago, Tug said:

Those whabi Muslim won’t be happy about this isent that the pretext they used to justify attacking the World Trade Center?doesent anyone advise Donald?

I wonder whom they hate most. The Shia or the Westerners?

[khunken]

2 hours ago, candide said:

I wonder whom they hate most. The Shia or the Westerners?

That's a very good point. There are pockets of Shia in Saudi, mostly along the Persian Gulf. They are not well treated.

I suspect they hate both equally. After all it was Saudi installed madrassas in various countries that brainwashed AQ & IS terrorists to target both Westerners & Shia.

Certainly some Wahabi fundamentalists won't like (more?) US troops being stationed in Saudi. Still, for once I applaud Trump for not overreacting despite all the propaganda eminating from the US. Bolton must be fuming.????

[JAG]

2 hours ago, Tug said:

Those whabi Muslim won’t be happy about this isent that the pretext they used to justify attacking the World Trade Center?doesent anyone advise Donald?

Umh, I understand that there are some vacancies in that part of the White House Staff just now...

 

[Odysseus123]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

By following the topic and noting what people post, or how they react to other posts. Not too hard. As for supporting Iran? Not so much as having issues with the USA (quite apparent from your post above, if there was a doubt about it).

 

Going on about the Shah is all very well, but he's been ousted 40 years ago. Corruption? The current Iranian regime is at least as corrupt and oppressive as the Shah's rule was.

 

Defending the US and its relations? More like accepting that countries and governments operate more to the tune of interests (which isn't necessarily a bad word) rather than morals. I just think that it applies all around whereas some tend to focus almost exclusively on the same shortlist.

As you say by following the topics and how people post.