Toronto Escorts

U.S. intel shows cruise missiles fired at Saudi oil facility came from Iran...

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
That would be an act of war...

It’s not surprising that the US would have significant surveillance assets in the gulf.

U.S. intel shows cruise missiles fired at Saudi oil facility came from Iran, officials say

The Department of Defense has advocated for restraint, but it has provided a briefing on military options to President Donald Trump.

Sept. 17, 2019, 12:04 PM EDT
The attack on a major Saudi oil facility originated geographically from Iranian territory, with a series of low-altitude cruise missiles fired from at least one location in the western region of the country, according to two U.S. officials familiar with the latest intelligence.

The intelligence assessment draws a more clear link between the attack and Iran, and it could worsen tensions between Washington and Tehran.

U.S. officials are considering possible multilateral sanctions with allies against Iran as part of the response to the attacks on Aramco's main crude processing facility, which knocked out 5.7 million barrels of daily oil production for Saudi Arabia, or more than 5 percent of the world's daily crude production, analysts have said.

The Department of Defense has advocated for restraint. But it has provided a briefing on military options to President Donald Trump, who over the weekend tweeted that the U.S. is "locked and loaded" and ready to respond, once it officially determined who was behind the attack.

Three U.S. officials previously told NBC News there was extremely compelling evidence showing the origination point of the strikes, and one official with direct knowledge described that evidence as imagery.

A Saudi military spokesman says initial investigations show Iranian weapons were used in the attack.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Tuesday no talks would take place between Iran and the U.S. "on any level," remarks that apparently meant to end all speculation about a U.S.-Iran meeting at the United Nations later this month.

"All officials in Iran have one united voice to not negotiate with the U.S. on any level," he told Iranian state television.
 

Knuckle Ball

Well-known member
Oct 15, 2017
6,793
2,787
113
Funny how trump believes US Intel when it suits his agenda.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Funny how trump believes US Intel when it suits his agenda.
This is NBC reporting on the intelligence, not on Trumps conclusion. You guys are a one note symphony
 

Knuckle Ball

Well-known member
Oct 15, 2017
6,793
2,787
113
This is NBC reporting on the intelligence, not on Trumps conclusion. You guys are a one note symphony
So you are claiming that trump does NOT believe Iran was behind the attacks? LOL

I suppose, though, that you raise an important point in that we still don’t know trump’s final conclusions about this attack because the Saudis have not told him what to think yet!

Pathetic
 

Liminal

Well-known member
Mar 21, 2003
1,575
217
63
That would be an act of war...

It’s not surprising that the US would have significant surveillance assets in the gulf.

U.S. intel shows cruise missiles fired at Saudi oil facility came from Iran, officials say

The Department of Defense has advocated for restraint, but it has provided a briefing on military options to President Donald Trump.

Sept. 17, 2019, 12:04 PM EDT
The attack on a major Saudi oil facility originated geographically from Iranian territory, with a series of low-altitude cruise missiles fired from at least one location in the western region of the country, according to two U.S. officials familiar with the latest intelligence.

The intelligence assessment draws a more clear link between the attack and Iran, and it could worsen tensions between Washington and Tehran.

U.S. officials are considering possible multilateral sanctions with allies against Iran as part of the response to the attacks on Aramco's main crude processing facility, which knocked out 5.7 million barrels of daily oil production for Saudi Arabia, or more than 5 percent of the world's daily crude production, analysts have said.

The Department of Defense has advocated for restraint. But it has provided a briefing on military options to President Donald Trump, who over the weekend tweeted that the U.S. is "locked and loaded" and ready to respond, once it officially determined who was behind the attack.

Three U.S. officials previously told NBC News there was extremely compelling evidence showing the origination point of the strikes, and one official with direct knowledge described that evidence as imagery.

A Saudi military spokesman says initial investigations show Iranian weapons were used in the attack.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Tuesday no talks would take place between Iran and the U.S. "on any level," remarks that apparently meant to end all speculation about a U.S.-Iran meeting at the United Nations later this month.

"All officials in Iran have one united voice to not negotiate with the U.S. on any level," he told Iranian state television.
Unamed sources from the country that faked Iraqi WMD evidence.
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
28,707
3,403
113
This is NBC reporting on the intelligence, not on Trumps conclusion. You guys are a one note symphony
And NBC has been been a war cheerleader due to its arms manufacturer connections for decades.

As well even if true it's between SA and Iran. The implication the USA needs to take a side is dangerous.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,731
17,566
113
This is NBC reporting on the intelligence, not on Trumps conclusion. You guys are a one note symphony
I thought you didn't believe the MSM.

CBC, which is not owned by corporate media like the US MSM, posted this image from Yemen.
They note that these suicide drones are relatively cheap and fly just using GPS targets, as well as noting google map availability of photos of their targets.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/tech-drones-saudi-oil-facilities-attacks-1.5287407




 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Wary of conflict with Iran, Trump takes go-slow approach to attack on Saudi oil
Steve Holland, Roberta Rampton
5 MIN READ

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...approach-to-attack-on-saudi-oil-idUSKBN1W22UN

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Known for acting on impulse, President Donald Trump has adopted an uncharacteristically go-slow approach over whether to hold Iran responsible for attacks on Saudi oil facilities, showing little enthusiasm for confrontation as he seeks re-election next year.

After state-owned Saudi Aramco’s plants were struck on Saturday, Trump did not wait long to fire off a tweet that the United States was “locked and loaded” to respond, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo blamed Iran.

But four days later, Trump has no timetable for action. Instead, he wants to wait and see the results of investigations into what happened and is sending Pompeo to consult counterparts in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates this week.

“There’s plenty of time,” Trump told reporters on Monday. “You know, there’s no rush. We’ll all be here a long time. There’s no rush.”

Two U.S. officials told Reuters on Tuesday that Washington believes the attack was launched from Iran, with one of them saying it originated in Iran’s southwest.

U.S. officials say Trump, who is famously skeptical of his intelligence community, wants to ensure the culprit is positively identified in a way that will pass muster not only with him but with the American people.

“In responding to the greatest attack on the global oil markets in history, I think not rushing to respond and ensuring everybody is on the same page is where we should be,” said a U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Trump’s stance today is in stark contrast to 2017, less than three months into his presidency, when he waited only two days before launching air strikes to punish Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s forces for a chemical weapons attack.

AMERICA FIRST

Trump’s caution reflects the “America First” world view that found support with his base in the 2016 presidential campaign and that he is trying to promote again as he seeks a second term in 2020.

Pillars of that view are that the Iraq war was a waste of blood and money, that the end of the war in Afghanistan is long overdue, and that Washington should be reimbursed for deployment of U.S. troops abroad, from South Korea to Germany.

Jon Alterman, a Middle East expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former State Department official, said Trump also “has grown increasingly cautious as the reality of any military actions increased.”

“There’s a large constituency the president has that thinks it would be lunacy to go to war against Iran,” he said. “There’s a large part of his base that thinks the craziest thing we could do is committing ourselves to endless wars in the Middle East.”

The attacks on Saudi targets have stymied for now what had been an effort to open talks with Iranian leaders to try to get a sense of whether they were ready to strike a deal on their nuclear and ballistic missile programs in response to economic sanctions that have taken a toll on Iran’s economy.

Trump’s willingness to consider easing sanctions on Iran alarmed his national security adviser, John Bolton, when the president raised the idea at a meeting last Monday, a source close to Bolton said. By the next day, Bolton was out.

Bolton’s departure removed a central anti-Iran voice from the president’s inner circle. A well-known foreign policy hawk, Bolton was said to be furious in June when Trump abruptly called off air strikes in response to Iran’s shooting down of a U.S. drone.

“If Bolton were there, he would be saying it was definitely Iran, and we need to strike right now,” said a former senior administration official.

Trump rebuked Lindsey Graham, one of his staunchest supporters in the U.S. Senate, after the Republican senator said in a tweet on Tuesday that Iran had seen Trump’s response to the drone downing as a sign of weakness.

“No Lindsey, it was a sign of strength that some people just don’t understand!” Trump said on Twitter.

In Venezuela, despite repeated vows that all options were on the table, Trump also resisted Bolton’s suggestions for a stronger focus on military planning in the country, where a U.S.-led campaign of sanctions and diplomatic pressure has failed to push socialist president Nicolas Maduro from power.

Barring a major escalation, future U.S. measures are expected to continue to stop short of military action due to a lack of support from U.S. voters but also because of opposition from allies in Latin America.

“We have to be realistic,” a Venezuela opposition source said. “Trump will not be sending in the Marines to rescue us.”
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
And with good reason.
 

mjg1

Well-known member
Feb 21, 2008
5,059
1,193
113
So now twitter tough guy Trump is getting cold feet and waiting for Saudi Arabia to tell him what to do. The truth is King Clown Trump had no plan what to do about Iran, after he took the US out of the Iranian nuclear deal. Trump just goes around doing things without thought or a clear path forward.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com

Polaris

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2007
3,076
58
48
hornyville
Weapons of mass destruction all over again.
Judith Miller write that article?
1. The Iranians did it. The op was too good. Hardly anyone has that kind of capability in that neighbourhood.
https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/09/article/how-iran-precisely-targeted-saudi-oil-facilities/

2. Lets have no illusions and everyone understands just one fucking point. If there is a war where the USA attacks I-ran, there will be no fucking Middle East oil for fucking anybody. Iran just attacked Saudi oil facilities with impressive strikes, and with complete impunity. In a real fucking war, expect fucking everything to be fucking taken out.

3. The USA will eventually back down and pretend officially the rebels were the ones who did this attack, which is probably impossible with their capability. That is the story that will be sold.
 

Polaris

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2007
3,076
58
48
hornyville
The USA will back down and pretend this did not happen for three reasons, avoiding a war with Iran.

1. Iran will have the capability to take out any oil field and processing facilities it wants. Do the Americans like $200 a barrel oil?

2. To invade Iran, the Americans will need the same level of force it used to invade Iraq. That takes months to build up. No one can hide that. The American public is not interested in another stupid war. Who got attacked here? It was Yemen rebels against the Saudis. There is no interest in America for Americans to fight another war in the Middle East.

3. If there is a real war, then how would the Americans define victory? Like Afghanistan? Like Iraq? Like Syria? Regime change does not work in that neighbourhood.

Officially right now, in the eyes of the world community, Iran is innocent of these attacks. If they are attacked by the Americans, they will have the right to defend themselves, which means $100 dollar barrel of oil. A full scale war probably means $200 dollar barrel of oil.

There are people in this world who would like to see the Americans attack Iran and launch another land war in the Middle East. These people are the Russians, the Chinese, and the Canadians.

The Russians will get to test out some new weapons in the conflict. The Chinese will get to work with their Iranian counterparts on their missile operations testing weapons systems. The Canadians with $200 dollar barrel of oil will final get to build their pipeline.

That is why the Americans will back down completely, as there is no way they will fight for Russian interest, nor will they fight for Chinese interest, and most definitely they will not fight for Canadian interests.

:ambivalence:
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,731
17,566
113
1. The Iranians did it. The op was too good. Hardly anyone has that kind of capability in that neighbourhood.
https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/09/article/how-iran-precisely-targeted-saudi-oil-facilities/

2. Lets have no illusions and everyone understands just one fucking point. If there is a war where the USA attacks I-ran, there will be no fucking Middle East oil for fucking anybody. Iran just attacked Saudi oil facilities with impressive strikes, and with complete impunity. In a real fucking war, expect fucking everything to be fucking taken out.

3. The USA will eventually back down and pretend officially the rebels were the ones who did this attack, which is probably impossible with their capability. That is the story that will be sold.
The CBC article I linked to above makes a stronger case that it could have been Yemen.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/tech-drones-saudi-oil-facilities-attacks-1.5287407

They note that Yemen has already attacked SA's airport with drones and have the types used in their possession. They have a long range and fly by GPS, not by operator. CBC says the costs for the attack were in the tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars as well. Its possible they were launched in Iraq, but that doesn't mean it wasn't Houthi either.

Your opinion piece doesn't have as much insight as that CBC article.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
The USA will back down and pretend this did not happen for three reasons, avoiding a war with Iran.

1. Iran will have the capability to take out any oil field and processing facilities it wants. Do the Americans like $200 a barrel oil?

2. To invade Iran, the Americans will need the same level of force it used to invade Iraq. That takes months to build up. No one can hide that. The American public is not interested in another stupid war. Who got attacked here? It was Yemen rebels against the Saudis. There is no interest in America for Americans to fight another war in the Middle East.

3. If there is a real war, then how would the Americans define victory? Like Afghanistan? Like Iraq? Like Syria? Regime change does not work in that neighbourhood.

Officially right now, in the eyes of the world community, Iran is innocent of these attacks. If they are attacked by the Americans, they will have the right to defend themselves, which means $100 dollar barrel of oil. A full scale war probably means $200 dollar barrel of oil.

There are people in this world who would like to see the Americans attack Iran and launch another land war in the Middle East. These people are the Russians, the Chinese, and the Canadians.

The Russians will get to test out some new weapons in the conflict. The Chinese will get to work with their Iranian counterparts on their missile operations testing weapons systems. The Canadians with $200 dollar barrel of oil will final get to build their pipeline.

That is why the Americans will back down completely, as there is no way they will fight for Russian interest, nor will they fight for Chinese interest, and most definitely they will not fight for Canadian interests.

:ambivalence:
There isn’t going to be a land war, that’s silly.

I would expect SA to have some sort of military response after the public case is made that Iran undertook an act of war.

China is dependent on ME oil, any major disruption would hit them hard. The US is energy independent.
 
Toronto Escorts