Saudi Arabia: Drone attack against world's largest crude oil refinery

[sumskilz]

@topic: What kind of Cruise Missiles has Israel? Wouldn`t Bibi like some action between Saudis and Iran? (tinfoilhat-modus activated)

Israel is capable, but I think the risk of getting caught is way too high for any speculative payoff, especial for risk averse Netanyahu. Unless of course it was a false flag coordinated with the US and Bin Salman, but then why bother having Israel do it. Plus, I don't believe Trump wants actual war. Maximum pressure is all about his negotiating tactics.

[Cope]

@95thrifleman You see killing a bunch of civvies in the middle of who-cares-where has no direct impact on you. Increased oil prices on the other hand do.

95thrifleman has openly called for the indiscriminate carpet bombing of Iraqi cities. His attempts to draw attention to the hypocrisy of those who take an interest in the destruction of Middle Eastern oil fields but not of civilians is therefore itself a laughable hypocrisy.

But to jump on the conspiracy theory bandwagon, how about the Texan oil barons? They definitely stand to gain from increased oil demand. And they do have a reckless buffoon for a president, desperate for a second term. I would imagine the US would have the "know-how" to execute such an attack. No?

> Trump is simultaneously a buffoon and an evil genius capable of conspiring with nameless "barons" to orchestrate a precision strike against an alleged ally in order to service the interests of American oil tycoons.

It's going to be a No.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Trump fired Bolton because he was too hawkish when it came to Iran, but wants to start a war with Iran. K.

[sumskilz]

I think most likely it was the Iranian Revolutionary Guard embedded with either the Houthis or an Iraqi militia. The Iranians would absolutely want plausible deniability while at the same time sending a clear message to the Saudis - this is just a taste of what we could do. Though I'm pretty sure Iran was immediately blamed without any solid evidence, and I'm open to other possibilities. Here is one for the pile.

[Abdülmecid I]

Trump fired Bolton because he was too hawkish when it came to Iran, but wants to start a war with Iran. K.

Don't think this is true, American foreign policy is not revolved exclusively around Iran. Bolton's dismissal occurred just after the negotiations with the Taliban in Qatar collapsed, so it's more reasonable to assume that his removal concerned Afghanistan, not Iran. As for the geographical argument, as I mentioned in the OP, the Yemeni have already targeted Saudi infrastructure well inside the Kingdom and nobody questioned their responsibility. What makes the current attack special is the precision and professionalism of the operation, which is why I personally agree with sumskilz' explanation. The perpetrator is probably a militia allied to Iran, Iraqi or Yemeni, which carried out the strike with Iranian assistance and equipment.

> Trump is simultaneously a buffoon and an evil genius capable of conspiring with nameless "barons" to orchestrate a precision strike against an alleged ally in order to service the interests of American oil tycoons.

I don't think Alastor ever described Donald as a nefarious conspirator. So far evil smirking has only been noticed in the Iranian President and Minister of Foreign Affairs... Being a buffoon also means that you're easily manipulated by influential lobbyists. But since we are deep on conspiracy theories, some food for thought:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Just kidding, of course, although it was initially claimed that the direction of the hits signifies that the Houthi could not have been the culprits, despite the obvious observation that drones (and even missiles at a certain level) can rotate and change orientation.

[Odenat]

Iran gains nothing from this attack, i don't think they are stupid enough to do it. They know 100% that they will be accused so it makes absolutely no sense for them to support such a strike. What i believe is that Iranians would prevent the attack if they knew about it. So, there is only two possibilities; Either Iranian supported rebels did that without Iranian knowledge or Salman&USA did it. The rebels who hate Saudi Arabia (and they are totally right) could get the necessary equipment without informing or lying to Iranians. Or Salman and his American masters planned this attack to increase the pressure. Remember, Saudi Arabia wanted to increase the price of oil for years and now the price is increasing. The facility will be repaired in weeks (maybe much quicker) but people will make billions until the oil prices decrease again. And didn't Americans tell all the world that Saddam have Weapons of Mass Destruction and they have proof on it before attacking Iraq?

[conon394]

Don't think this is true, American foreign policy is not revolved exclusively around Iran. Bolton's dismissal occurred just after the negotiations with the Taliban in Qatar collapsed, so it's more reasonable to assume that his removal concerned Afghanistan, not Iran.

Bolton is a real hawk, period. He got fired because unlike Trump who so far is just a gas bag unless its refugees at the boarder, has got a the stomach to act. Bolton still see no issues with how Iraq turned out he would bombed Iran when the us was ready to and not batted an eye if the civilian death toll was orders of magnitude greater than the supposed numbers that deterred Trump. If anything Bolton was fired because he probably spoke his mind, likely hated the pointless love fest with Kim, the waffling on Iraq and seemingly handing A-stan back to the Taliban. In other words collectively all of that not one disagreement.

[Heathen Hammer]

Bolton is a real hawk, period. He got fired because unlike Trump who so far is just a gas bag unless its refugees at the boarder, has got a the stomach to act. Bolton still see no issues with how Iraq turned out he would bombed Iran when the us was ready to and not batted an eye if the civilian death toll was orders of magnitude greater than the supposed numbers that deterred Trump. If anything Bolton was fired because he probably spoke his mind, likely hated the pointless love fest with Kim, the waffling on Iraq and seemingly handing A-stan back to the Taliban. In other words collectively all of that not one disagreement.

Oh no, how dare that evil Trump attempt to put an end to America's constant illegal wars in Middle East! Poor little neocon Bolton!

[Lord Thesaurian]

As far as I know, the only regional powers capable of the level of sophistication that has been claimed are Iran (with Russian/Chinese tech or material support) or Israel. Barring a conspiracy, the idea of Israel attacking a nominal ally while engaged in a shadow war with Iran seems illogical, if only because the Saudis don’t need any encouragement to oppose Iran. Iran has been launching terror attacks through its vast network of proxy groups for decades; this latest is hardly out of the norm for them. Iran also benefits from higher oil prices, especially at a time when it needs to alleviate sanctions with oil money.

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-saudi-missiles-same-iran-1459510

Russia’s play here indicates the real fallout for the US. Given the increasing coordination between Russia, China, and Iran, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the attack and coordinated response are part of their broader, long-running strategy to facilitate the collapse of US superpower and carve up the world for themselves.

Oh no, how dare that evil Trump attempt to put an end to America's constant illegal wars in Middle East! Poor little neocon Bolton!

There seems to be a bizarre narrative that Trump has a hand in US energy independence, or that he’s some kind of shrewd isolationist carefully extricating the US from foreign wars. Trump is no evil genius, but he is certainly an imbecile acting in bad faith who wants to be perceived as a “tough, stable genius.” He fired Bolton because Bolton dared to contradict God Emperor Trump at least one too many times. There is no other reason.

The result has been that Trump routinely fuels existing trends of destabilization of entire regions and blindsides our allies without actually following a non-interventionist policy platform or a coherent strategy as commander in chief. He pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal to look “tough,” but then failed to follow up and actually be “tough” on Iran. He now wants to make the same nuclear deal with Iran in exchange for relieved sanctions. This arguably leaves Iran in a stronger geopolitical position than they’ve ever been in, having been “victimized” by US sabotage of an agreement that, as it turns out, was in the US’ interest to maintain.

Same goes for Syria, Afghanistan, Korea, etc. We still have troops there, but no coherent strategy for our leaders or allies to rally behind. It’s the worst of both worlds. Trumpism is far worse than the most hawkish neocon policy narrative, if only because Trump has no policy narrative at all.

[Abdülmecid I]

Neither Tehran nor Moscow have anything to gain from escalating the tensions in the Middle East. Iran could have approved of or initiated the attack, in an effort to intimidate its adversaries and underline its capabilities, but the Kremlin definitely wants to avoid any military conflict, which is why it strongly condemned any attempt to add fuel to the fire. After all, Russian relations with Riyadh have improved significantly in the recent years, reinforced by close cooperation in the production of oil. After all, there is no common plan to destroy the United States and partition the word, because it's absurdly unrealistic under the present circumstances and balance of power, while China, Russia and Iran are also divided by a multitude of conflicting interests.

I personally don't see how American influence in the Fertile Crescent is threatened, especially considering how both Russia and Iran have been wasting innumerable resources to simply maintain their sphere of influence in the only sovereign country that is allied with them, Syria. Finally, Iran has long ceased (if it ever actually occurred) to systematically employ terrorism, in order to facilitate its foreign policy. Depending whether the drones were indeed launched by Yemen, even the current affair cannot be classified as terrorist, since it concerned a legitimate hit on the financial soft-belly of an invader, while also incurring zero civilian casualties.

[Love Mountain]

Again, I'm not sure where these claims of "sophistication" (even if true) support the idea that a state actor is directly responsible. Military supplies get "lost" in the Middle East all the time. All kinds of former military personnel serve in various paramilitary or terrorist groups all the time. In other words, both military equipment and expertise is readily available to any religious fundamentalists or straight-up mercenaries. These groups can work either in tandem with states like Iran, or they can be completely independent. Such formations aren't necessarily spurred only by religious conflicts, political ideologies or nationalism also drive various groups to conflict. I have seen remarkably little evidence to support any conclusion. It's all fun to speculate that Iran or Israel did this or that, but to me, the fact that U.S. and our allies have been so scant with solid evidence, tells me that revealing it either hurts our interests in the region, or we simply don't know. Considering how few days have passed since the event, I'm leaning towards the "don't know" side as it takes time to investigate and gather information.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Neither Tehran nor Moscow have anything to gain from escalating the tensions in the Middle East. Iran could have approved of or initiated the attack, in an effort to intimidate its adversaries and underline its capabilities, but the Kremlin definitely wants to avoid any military conflict, which is why it strongly condemnedany attempt to add fuel to the fire. After all, Russian relations with Riyadh have improved significantly in the recent years, reinforced by close cooperationin the production of oil.

Beyond the general rule that broad cooperation is preferable to violence and destabilization, the sentiment that the attack is automatically “bad” for Russia and Iran seems questionable, if only because it means there is no logical reason for it to have happened at all. Holding forth the cloak of plausible deniability and calls for de-escalation with one hand, while thrusting the proverbial dagger with the other, is textbook strategy for state actors who want to exert military influence without provoking a conventional response by much stronger adversaries. Iran and Russia are perfectly able to demonstrate their capabilities and achieve major objectives while maintaining a relatively lower profile, as seen in Syria. This was a high profile attack on the economic heart of a key US ally in the region using methods and technology that can only be ascribed to specific players, one of whom is an ally of the nation that was attacked, and the other of whom is its main regional adversary. Given the potential risks and consequences, ascribing the attack to a mere show of strength would mean Iranian leadership is incredibly brash with no grand strategy, or worse.

After all, there is no common plan to destroy the United States and partition the word, because it's absurdly unrealistic under the present circumstances and balance of power, while China, Russia and Iran are also divided by a multitude of conflicting interests.

Common interests are not common plans. Without venturing too far off topic, Russia has been the jealous, brooding trench coat outcast to the American-led “cool kids” clique for almost a century now. China has made no secret of its plans to beat the US at its own game and become the next hyperpower. Iran is a regionally dominant power with millennia of historical legitimacy, and has been exporting “global Islamic revolution” against the Great Satan America/Israel for decades. The increasing coordination between them - military, economic, political - is aimed squarely at the US, regardless of whether or not it will ultimately prove successful.

I personally don't see how American influence in the Fertile Crescent is threatened, especially considering how both Russia and Iran have been wasting innumerable resources to simply maintain their sphere of influence in the only sovereign country that is allied with them, Syria.

The attack was, at a minimum, a high profile embarrassment for the US, who has been shown to be an ineffective guarantor of regional stability for the umpteenth time this decade. Russia removed any doubt the issue would be framed this way by publicly proposing the sale of defense systems specifically opposed by the US within a day of the attack. The US has also been providing muscle for Middle Eastern allies for decades. Russia, if not also Iran, clearly wants to fill both those roles, as seen in Syria, and now with this push for weapons sales, security agreements, cooperation against western sanctions, and regional summits. Iran wants to be the world oil producer that Saudi Arabia has been historically, as evidenced by their insistence that any sanctions relief includes purchases of Iranian oil. If anyone benefits from attacks that knock out a huge chunk of Saudi oil production while making the US look weak, it’s Russia and Iran.

Finally, Iran has long ceased (if it ever actually occurred) to systematically employ terrorism, in order to facilitate its foreign policy. Depending whether the drones were indeed launched by Yemen, even the current affair cannot be classified as terrorist, since it concerned a legitimate hit on the financial soft-belly of an invader, while also incurring zero civilian casualties.

The “terrorism” monicker was meant to be more generic and less accusatory given it’s par for the course. The alternative description is an act of war within Saudi borders by Iran from a base within Iran, which would be a fairly devastating development for the region and the world. Even if one prefers to describe Hezbollah and other Iran-sponsored groups as something other than terrorists, Iran has been pretty busy all on its own:

https://ctc.usma.edu/irans-deadly-diplomats/

[Cyclops]

So I'm getting a sense that we've given too many toys to our cats' paws and they are using them more effectively than we'd like? I have no sympathy for the cruel Saudi regime, but lets not kick off WW III until we're ready.

Putin is interestingly positioned here. If the US really is energy independent (a quick Google says they import only 10% of their fuel, of course it may slice and dice differently for various grades) then Putin can spin it like they're fouling the well for the rest of the world. I don't think its true but he doesn't have to convince me, he needs to plant seeds in the mind of torturing bastards.

[B. W.]

So I'm getting a sense that we've given too many toys to our cats' paws and they are using them more effectively than we'd like? I have no sympathy for the cruel Saudi regime, but lets not kick off WW III until we're ready.

Putin is interestingly positioned here. If the US really is energy independent (a quick Google says they import only 10% of their fuel, of course it may slice and dice differently for various grades) then Putin can spin it like they're fouling the well for the rest of the world. I don't think its true but he doesn't have to convince me, he needs to plant seeds in the mind of torturing bastards.

It's a little misleading when a news article states that the US imports 10% of its oil. It doesn't have to. That 10% is more than offset by west coast exports from places such as Alaska. It's cheaper to send that oil to Asia than transport it through the Panama Canal and then make up the difference by importing the difference on the East coast. When the pipelines that can carry the oil across country instead of shipping it are built the present system of oil swapping will go the way of the dinosaurs. It won't hurt the US, but it will have an effect on oil importing countries.

[Love Mountain]

Global oil logistics aren't simple subtraction and addition. I.E. you can't simply replace heavy Saudi crude for Alaskan heavy crude. What kind of product is the refinery making? What is the final price for the end user? How long are the contracts and what price was locked in? Et cetera, et cetera.

In terms of a macroeconomic picture, to know who actually lost or won from lost Saudi production, one would have to look at several things.

A. Which firms does KSA actually supply?
B. Who is in position to slot in as a direct replacement?
C. What was the actual effect of the attack on oil production?

[Cookiegod]

First of all, it's obviously Houthi rockets that were used. Secondly, the strikes hit from the West, as anyone can gauge from those pics. Thirdly, the Houthis have proved to be highly capable at hitting distant targets with various rockets, etc. And the Houthi's aren't strictly speaking just the Houthi's, but the biggest chunk of the Yemeni army fights with them, and with that comes decades of experience operating various rocket systems and modifying them. Fourthly, it is an open secret that the Quds is pretty much based on the Soumar, which is based on the Soviet Kh55, but whether the Iranians developed that missile for them or simply provided them with Soumar blueprints and left it to them to figure out how to build their versions of it with the limited means at their disposal (due to the blockade) really doesn't matter. Fifth: All of you wondering about how that flew over a thousand km, well, I've got news for you: Houthis have operated inside Saudi Arabia for years now, and if I recall it correctly, that spokesman announcing the strike actually himself referred to the "friends" in the kingdom that helped them guide the drones into the targets.

Well obviously he was somewhat ting with the drone part, but a vast desert between you and the target means you're pretty much free to drive across said desert and fire those rockets from up close.

@B.W: You're living in fantasy land.

[alhoon]

Discussion on the changes of the regulations governing USA's energy production sector was moved to a new thread as it is off topic in a thread about the attack on the Saudi refinery.

[Swiss Army Cheese]

Mods. My finger slipped. I meant to vote for the Houthis.

Oh no, how dare that evil Trump attempt to put an end to America's constant illegal wars in Middle East! Poor little neocon Bolton!

... I've really gotta stop listening to Scott Adams. He has me believing that Trump's hiring of Bolton in the first place was part of Trump's 3-Dimentional Chess-Game with Trump playing the "Good-Cop" to Bolton's "Bad-Cop", and not a matter of Bolton being not-Trump's first choice for Security Advisor when the FBI went after Michael Flynn.
Plus there's his whole "America has no problem with Iranian people, it's Iran's government" speech, which has me forgetting "Oh right. There's all that stuff America did to Iran".

As far as I know, the only regional powers capable of the level of sophistication that has been claimed are Iran (with Russian/Chinese tech or material support) or Israel. Barring a conspiracy, the idea of Israel attacking a nominal ally while engaged in a shadow war with Iran seems illogical, if only because the Saudis don’t need any encouragement to oppose Iran. Iran has been launching terror attacks through its vast network of proxy groups for decades; this latest is hardly out of the norm for them. Iran also benefits from higher oil prices, especially at a time when it needs to alleviate sanctions with oil money.

If this was Iran they would have benefitted from the higher oil prices a lot more if the strike was performed 2 weeks earlier, what with the sale of the oil from the Grace 1 tanker. Then again, maybe Iran is a hole and didn't want to bust the balls of its customer before making the trade. Or maybe the fuel for the drones was supplied by the oil Iran sold and the attack couldn't have been made sooner (or maybe fourth thing that I don't want to say since it just looks like I'm covering my bases and now I forgot what fourth thing was)?

[Cookiegod]

Iran's oil sales (and especially the ones to their ally Syria) don't depend that much on oil prices. As they're on the receiving end of an economical war being waged by the US, they have to sell what they can at a discount. And Syria probably receives an additional discount, given that they're allies and it doesn't have much money to pay either, as it's been so impudent as to resist, rather than have western backed Islamist thugs take it over -> Also under blockade.


Iran has threatened that "If they're not allowed to sell their oil, then neither is anyone else", and they'd both be able and justified to do what they want given their circumstances, without risking that much of a reaction by continental Europe, Russia, China and India, whereas the US is already doing all the mischief it's doing, and knows that doing any more than it already does would cause severe repercussions.

So basically Iran hasn't gotten that much to lose anymore, whereas the US and its satellite states still do. But there isn't really much there to back up the American claim of an Iranian strike. It's most likely the Houthis, who did similar attacks before. Maybe with direct Iranian support for the operation.

The attacks on Abqaiq et al. were predictable. Since the attack on Riyadh I and others have thought that a strike on Saudi oil infrastructure was only a matter of time.


Anyway: I'm happy no one seemingly got killed, and I wish the Houthis the best to kick the Saudi some more.

[Vanoi]

When China's oil imports get interrupted by Houthi strikes we'll see if Iran has nothing to lose.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/dipl...ify-oil-supply