Saudi Arabia to wait for investigation before responding to attacks - minister

[rooster59]

Saudi Arabia to wait for investigation before responding to attacks - minister

By Stephen Kalin

 

FILE PHOTO - Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir speaks at a briefing with reporters in London, Britain June 20, 2019. REUTERS/Simon Dawson

 

RIYADH (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia will wait for the results of an investigation before responding to last weekend's attack on its oil facilities, for which it believes Iran is responsible, a senior official said on Saturday.

 

Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Adel al-Jubeir told reporters that the probe, which Riyadh has invited international investigators to join, would prove that the Sept. 14 strikes came from the north.

 

"It was done with Iranian weapons, therefore we hold Iran accountable for this attack..." Jubeir told a news conference, declining to speculate about specific actions. "The kingdom will take the appropriate measures based on the results of the investigation, to ensure its security and stability."

 

Riyadh has rejected a claim by Yemen's Iran-aligned Houthi movement that it carried out the strikes on two oil plants that initially halved Saudi production, the largest-ever assault on oil facilities in the world's top oil exporter.

 

"We are certain that the launch did not come from Yemen, it came from the north," Jubeir said. "The investigations will prove that."

 

The kingdom has already said the investigation so far shows that Iranian weapons were used and the attack originated from the north, and that it was working to pinpoint the exact launch location.

 

It sees the strikes on its Khurais and Abqaiq facilities as a test of global will to preserve international order and will likely make its case at the United Nations General Assembly in New York next week.

 

Saudi Arabia is consulting with its allies to "take the necessary steps", Jubeir said, urging the world to take a stand.

 

"The kingdom calls upon the international community to assume its responsibility in condemning those that stand behind this act, and to take a firm and clear position against this reckless behaviour that threatens the global economy," he said.

 

"The Iranian position is to try to divide the world and in that it is not succeeding."

 

The United States this week imposed more sanctions on Iran and approved sending American troops to bolster Saudi air and missile defences, which failed to thwart the Sept. 14 attacks. The deployment could further aggravate Iran, which has responded to previous U.S. troop deployments this year with apprehension.

 

Asked about the deployment, Jubeir said: "...The challenges that we're facing now call for enhancing security cooperation between the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its allies and partners..."

 

(Reporting by Stephen Kalin in Riyadh; Additional reporting by Maher Chmaytelli in Dubai; Writing by Ghaida Ghantous; Editing by Ros Russell)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-09-22

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[sammieuk1]

I think Iran's unknown capability is all that's keeping a lid on things right now as soon as the impending losses are assessed and minimized Iran will get its long overdue war ????    

[ezzra]

Iran will be in a very bad position should they will go to war, with their economy in the crapper and their currency been heavily devalued the last thing they want is war, but pride an loss of honor and face sent many nations and armies to war over the centuries and it's remain to see whether Iran is will to sacrifice hundred of thousands of it's soldiers and population so they keep their pride on...

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, sammieuk1 said:

I think Iran's unknown capability is all that's keeping a lid on things right now as soon as the impending losses are assessed and minimized Iran will get its long overdue war ????    

And exactly who is going to invade Iran? And if you mean just a bombing war, what do you think the results will be for the price of oil? 

[sammieuk1]

22 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

And exactly who is going to invade Iran? And if you mean just a bombing war, what do you think the results will be for the price of oil? 

Exactly no one will be invading at least at the start then a free for all when the bombs and drones have done their work and it wont take a genius to figure out where oil prices will go????

[bristolboy]

55 minutes ago, ezzra said:

Iran will be in a very bad position should they will go to war, with their economy in the crapper and their currency been heavily devalued the last thing they want is war, but pride an loss of honor and face sent many nations and armies to war over the centuries and it's remain to see whether Iran is will to sacrifice hundred of thousands of it's soldiers and population so they keep their pride on...

And exactly who is going to be invading Iran?

[Morch]

More like Saudi Arabia can't take on Iran solo, and the Trump administration commitment or appetite for involvement being doubtful. There is no conceivable way Saudi Arabia could effectively respond to the attack, even if it dared to openly charge Iran as being directly responsible.

 

They can't do squat, hence waffling.

 

 

 

 

[Baerboxer]

2 hours ago, ezzra said:

Iran will be in a very bad position should they will go to war, with their economy in the crapper and their currency been heavily devalued the last thing they want is war, but pride an loss of honor and face sent many nations and armies to war over the centuries and it's remain to see whether Iran is will to sacrifice hundred of thousands of it's soldiers and population so they keep their pride on...

 

I agree. But they are fanatically proud and prepared to do anything.

 

They're hope is that other "friendly' nations will support them or even join them. They recently carried out military exercises with Russia and Turkey so we know who their friends are!

[Baerboxer]

27 minutes ago, Morch said:

More like Saudi Arabia can't take on Iran solo, and the Trump administration commitment or appetite for involvement being doubtful. There is no conceivable way Saudi Arabia could effectively respond to the attack, even if it dared to openly charge Iran as being directly responsible.

 

They can't do squat, hence waffling.

 

 

 

 

 

Having lived and worked in KSA for a while, I think you're spot on!

 

They have a military and their much vaunted National Guards. Heavily armed. But couldn't organize anything!

 

Look how easily their ADS was penetrated. 

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Having lived and worked in KSA for a while, I think you're spot on!

 

They have a military and their much vaunted National Guards. Heavily armed. But couldn't organize anything!

 

Look how easily their ADS was penetrated. 

 

They can't handle the Houthis, so taking on Iran seems like a tall order.

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

I agree. But they are fanatically proud and prepared to do anything.

 

They're hope is that other "friendly' nations will support them or even join them. They recently carried out military exercises with Russia and Turkey so we know who their friends are!

 

I seriously doubt either Russia or Turkey will get militarily involved in any potential fighting. I'll even go an extra mile, and expect Russia will not provide Iran with military hardware under such conditions.

[ezzra]

29 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

I agree. But they are fanatically proud and prepared to do anything.

 

They're hope is that other "friendly' nations will support them or even join them. They recently carried out military exercises with Russia and Turkey so we know who their friends are!

No way Russia or even Turkey will turn weapons on Israel, Iran is a pariah nation in this world known for it's staunch support and a facilitator of terror all over the world, , and if it wasn't for their oil Iran would have been insignificantly viewed as just another large country and nothing more on the other hand no one really want to tangle with them either, except Israel that is if and when push comes to shoves...

[Morch]

1 minute ago, ezzra said:

No way Russia or even Turkey will turn weapons on Israel, Iran is a pariah nation in this world known for it's staunch support and a facilitator of terror all over the world, , and if it wasn't for their oil Iran would have been insignificantly viewed as just another large country and nothing more on the other hand no one really want to tangle with them either, except Israel that is if and when push comes to shoves...

 

Iran is not a "pariah nation", other than in some posters' fantasies. Iran as a sponsor and facilitator of terrorism is more of a Western thing, doesn't really apply for relations with Russia, Turkey and others.

 

As for "if it wasn't for their oil" - yeah, well....this could be said about other Middle East countries as well. Seeing as they have the oil, and that oil is still a "thing", them "if" musings are meaningless.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, ezzra said:

No way Russia or even Turkey will turn weapons on Israel, Iran is a pariah nation in this world known for it's staunch support and a facilitator of terror all over the world, , and if it wasn't for their oil Iran would have been insignificantly viewed as just another large country and nothing more on the other hand no one really want to tangle with them either, except Israel that is if and when push comes to shoves...

Sure, Iran is such a pariah that the Europeans and other major nations are trying to find a way around the Trump administration sanctions. Even the UK is in on this. Does your world consist of Saudi Arabia, Israel, the the USA under Trump?

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, Donaldo said:

If it wasn't for the US on the UK behest overthrowing the democratically elected president Mosaddegh in 1953, and then installing the Shah in his place, Iran would definitely be a different country today. All the extremism everywhere has been created by the continuous interventions and manipulations of foreign nations. The US, UK and France are the worst culprits, without leaving out Israel of course. But the latter controls the US, so that is the same. It is however a pathetic show of cynisism pretending to "protect" a rogue state like Saudi Arabia that commits atrocities on a daily basis, either in Yemen or in it's own country. Jamal Kashoggi was just one of many. And you can be 100% sure that nothing happens there without the approval of the top. The US is aligning itself with the very worst and brutal regimes in the world. Birds of the same feather I assume.

 

For some, extremism never got anything to do with local culture, ways and religion. It's always about them foreigners meddling. Somehow, for this lot, some countries and people are never accountable for anything.

[ChrisY1]

SA are useless....they don't have the nous to take an on any military enemy, especially Iran...all the money they have, hasn't produced an army that's willing or able to fight for their country....

The US would have to do the fighting for them! Hence why Ass##le has sent more troops there.

[Lokie]

I am amazed that all the oil wealth SA has that they have not invested in the very best defence systems (Radar and Missile) that it seemingly appears anyone can just fly a few UAVs in and carry out a strike with impunity... They are not even sure from which direction the attack came from?

 

Seems right now they are being very careful what they say as looks like an adversary could just send in a few more UAV attacks - they appear very exposed... Maybe they should start spending their oil $$s on worthwhile equipment after having the good life for the last 60/70 years...

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, Lokie said:

I am amazed that all the oil wealth SA has that they have not invested in the very best defence systems (Radar and Missile) that it seemingly appears anyone can just fly a few UAVs in and carry out a strike with impunity... They are not even sure from which direction the attack came from?

 

Seems right now they are being very careful what they say as looks like an adversary could just send in a few more UAV attacks - they appear very exposed... Maybe they should start spending their oil $$s on worthwhile equipment after having the good life for the last 60/70 years...

 

They have invested a lot in air defense systems. It's not a question of spending.

 

Quality of personnel involved effects performance of systems, and the Saudi military is not known to be the best on this front.

 

Other than that, most current air defense systems' capabilities lag behind compared to threats such as cruise missiles and UAVs. Some of this can probably be addressed by tweaking systems, rethinking their positioning and operation patterns or simply adding more of them. But there's no comprehensive solution effective enough to offer anything near full-proof protection.  

[Lokie]

8 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

They have invested a lot in air defense systems. It's not a question of spending.

 

Quality of personnel involved effects performance of systems, and the Saudi military is not known to be the best on this front.

 

Other than that, most current air defense systems' capabilities lag behind compared to threats such as cruise missiles and UAVs. Some of this can probably be addressed by tweaking systems, rethinking their positioning and operation patterns or simply adding more of them. But there's no comprehensive solution effective enough to offer anything near full-proof protection.  

Im no expert but, we saying that the newest version of say the US Patriot (I first seen used back in 1991) type defence systems do not have the capability to knock out UAVs invading a protected airspace? This technology is probably over 40 years old now from R&D...

 

A quick google after watching a doc last week on HMS Duncan a Type 45 Air Defence Destroyer has a system called Sea Viper, hers a bit of gen on that: 

PAAMS is designed to track, target and destroy a variety of high performance air threats, including saturation attacks of very low altitude, supersonic cruise missiles, fighter aircraft and UAVs. PAAMS can launch 8 missiles in under 10 seconds with its Sylver Vertical Launching System, and simultaneously guide up to 16 missiles at once.^[4] The PAAMS(S) variant consists of both the SAMPSON (British variant) or EMPAR (French-Italian) variant and S1850M long range radars and is capable of tracking in excess of 1,000 targets at ranges of up-to 400 km. BAE Systems also claims that its SAMPSON radar has "excellent detection of stealth aircraft and missiles".^[5] Nick Brown the editor-in-chief of Jane’s International Defence Review was quoted by The Huffington Post saying, "It’s Type 45 destroyer certainly one of the most advanced air defence ships in the world. The US Aegis system is similar, but Sea Viper is more advanced as it can engage multiple targets simultaneously."

 

Maybe one for the SA shopping list PAMMS not the boat

[Morch]

11 minutes ago, Donaldo said:

What sort of a reply is this ? Of course culture and religion has a role to play. Especially the latter. But the believe in unadulterated capitalism and the illusion of freedom and democracy is also a "religion". What I said, and I stand by it, is that without the interventionalism of foreign nations trying to impose their views and values the world would be a much better place. Especially the US and UK like to portray themselves as some sort of crusaders defending the holy grail. The only thing they try to secure is the riches to be found and their perceived military dominance. I am not part of the sheeple and can think for myself without big brothers "guidance" through MSM or social media.

 

You have no idea whether things in the region would have been better, "if only" this or that. And you do not seem to see people, leaders and countries in the region as accountable for anything much. That you repeat your point of view doesn't make it any more substantiated.

 

Countries having interests is nothing new. Nor is it always a bad thing. It may come as a shock, but even countries and factions in the Middle East have them.

[Salerno]

10 minutes ago, Lokie said:

Im no expert but, we saying that the newest version of say the US Patriot (I first seen used back in 1991) type defence systems do not have the capability to knock out UAVs invading a protected airspace?

How did the Patriot do back then against dumb missiles?

[sirineou]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You have no idea whether things in the region would have been better, "if only" this or that. And you do not seem to see people, leaders and countries in the region as accountable for anything much. That you repeat your point of view doesn't make it any more substantiated.

 

Countries having interests is nothing new. Nor is it always a bad thing. It may come as a shock, but even countries and factions in the Middle East have them.

Countries have interests and individuals have interests,

The question is , are the actions taken in the middle east,and the world in general  in  support of the fossil fuel industry, in the interest of countries, or is it in the interest of individuals? 

[Morch]

13 minutes ago, Lokie said:

Im no expert but, we saying that the newest version of say the US Patriot (I first seen used back in 1991) type defence systems do not have the capability to knock out UAVs invading a protected airspace? This technology is probably over 40 years old now from R&D...

 

A quick google after watching a doc last week on HMS Duncan a Type 45 Air Defence Destroyer has a system called Sea Viper, hers a bit of gen on that: 

PAAMS is designed to track, target and destroy a variety of high performance air threats, including saturation attacks of very low altitude, supersonic cruise missiles, fighter aircraft and UAVs. PAAMS can launch 8 missiles in under 10 seconds with its Sylver Vertical Launching System, and simultaneously guide up to 16 missiles at once.^[4] The PAAMS(S) variant consists of both the SAMPSON (British variant) or EMPAR (French-Italian) variant and S1850M long range radars and is capable of tracking in excess of 1,000 targets at ranges of up-to 400 km. BAE Systems also claims that its SAMPSON radar has "excellent detection of stealth aircraft and missiles".^[5] Nick Brown the editor-in-chief of Jane’s International Defence Review was quoted by The Huffington Post saying, "It’s Type 45 destroyer certainly one of the most advanced air defence ships in the world. The US Aegis system is similar, but Sea Viper is more advanced as it can engage multiple targets simultaneously."

 

Maybe one for the SA shopping list PAMMS not the boat

 

Most major arms exports do not include the latest top notch models, or the most advanced variations on the available shopping list. Whatever the Saudis are authorized to buy - they'll buy.

 

I cannot be sure which systems were on during the attack, both in Saudi Arabia and on foreign navy ships in the Gulf. But apparently, the incoming missiles/drones were neither detected nor engaged.

 

I am sure that this will give some people, both in the military and in relevant firms, some sleepless nights.

 

 

[Morch]

1 minute ago, sirineou said:

Countries have interests and individuals have interests,

The question is , are the actions taken in the middle east,and the world in general  in  support of the fossil fuel industry, in the interest of countries, or is it in the interest of individuals? 

 

That's your question. I'm not inclined to frame it that way, and no idea where you're going with this line of reasoning. 

[Lokie]

13 minutes ago, Salerno said:

How did the Patriot do back then against dumb missiles?

Well as I said am no expert but from what I seen;  

Incoming Scuds it did intercept done its job (but then the debris has to fall somewhere so still has risk but better than HE warhead hitting a population zone or target) 

 

More importantly it helped to prevent the IAF (which was bombed up and ready to go against Saddam) by providing a shield against his scud launches on Israel so I think on the whole it done a pretty good job, hit more than it missed seemed to be the view... What do you think?

[Salerno]

Last I heard, 91% failure rate ... but it was good propaganda ... and yes, reason enough to keep the Israelis on a leash.