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

[Lord Thesaurian]

1. It is okay in general, but "this is the reason why we need to go to war on behalf of a violent theocratic dictatorship... from an anonymous source". Sorry outrageous claims require sufficient evidence.

The WSJ article I linked to says no such thing. I’d be genuinely interested to read any reputable source that says “we need to go to war with Iran on behalf of a violent theocratic dictatorship.” Considering the fact that Trump is sending troops to Saudi Arabia, I’ve yet to see where the clandestine machinations of your globalist elites come into the picture.

2. The ones that don't make such claims with 0 evidence.

The evidence for the article’s descriptions of overtures from Yemeni rebels so far relies on anonymous sources. I guess you’d rather not answer the questions.

[Ludicus]

In my opinion, in what concerns the mysterious identity of the perpetrator, neither Iran nor America/Saudi Arabia are reliable...So, what do you think?..

You are right, and I dont have the slightest idea.
But it would be a gross exaggeration to describe the Saudi oil attack as a "Pearl Harbor Moment" or a " USS Maddox Moment"...

... As for the factors that led to the great Revolution of 1979...Popular uprising

Yes. Popular uprising in 1979 and..a coup d'etat in 1953 . Read the declassified documents released in 2017 that shed light on CIA's central role in the coup that brought down Mossadegh and fueled a surge of nationalism which culminated in Iranian Revolution of 79. The operation Ajax was ultimately about the western control of the Iranian oil: the UK refused to share oil revenues in Iran; Mossadegh nationalized Iran’s oil industry.
Foreign Relations of the United States, Iran, 1951–1954. This volume complements Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Volume X, Iran, 1951–1954, published in 1989, by providing documentation on the use of covert operations by the Truman and Eisenhower administrations.


Coup d'Etat of 1953 - fondation Mossadegh

After the coup, the tangible benefits the United States reaped from overthrowing Iran's elected government included a share of Iran's oil wealth as well as resolute prevention of the slim possibility that the Iranian government might align itself with the Soviet Union, although the latter motivation still produces controversy among historians. Mohammad-Reza Pahlavi ruled as an authoritarian monarch for the next 26 years, while depending on the support of the powers that had supported him in the coup until he was overthrown in a popular revolt in 1979.

[Heathen Hammer]

The WSJ article I linked to says no such thing. I’d be genuinely interested to read any reputable source that says “we need to go to war with Iran on behalf of a violent theocratic dictatorship.” Considering the fact that Trump is sending troops to Saudi Arabia, I’ve yet to see where the clandestine machinations of your globalist elites come into the picture.

I wasn't the one who wrote the article in such a way that it implied that.

The evidence for the article’s descriptions of overtures from Yemeni rebels so far relies on anonymous sources. I guess you’d rather not answer the questions.

The question anyone with critical thinking ability would ask is why can't they show their sources or provide any evidence.

[95thrifleman]

It's pretty obvious Iran is supporting the rebels, just as america supported the rebels in Syria.

So what? America won't go to war over it, not with the elections looming and Trump relying on his isolationist maga rhetoric.

[The spartan]

So what? America won't go to war over it, not with the elections looming and Trump relying on his isolationist maga rhetoric.

Wouldn't Iran then take advantage of this and keep pushing Saudi Arabia?

[Lord Thesaurian]

I wasn't the one who wrote the article in such a way that it implied that.

Given that you can barely make it through a post without talking about the “globalist elite propaganda,” and the fact that the article doesn’t state anything close to what you’re claiming, it’s pretty obvious you’re the one doing any implying.

The question anyone with critical thinking ability would ask is why can't they show their sources or provide any evidence.

Because if journalists burn their sources, they won’t have any who are willing to divulge anything more controversial than a cake recipe. Welcome to political reporting 101. The article frames the allegations in the appropriate context. You’re the one who hasn’t presented any evidence for your assertions.

[95thrifleman]

Wouldn't Iran then take advantage of this and keep pushing Saudi Arabia?

Iran is supporting Yemen for the same reason America supported the taliban against the Russians. It's an opportunity to piss off an enemy with little real footprint or commitment. I doubt it'll escalate too much, Iran doesn't really care about Yemen, they are busy taking advantage of the Syrian situation and the fact America dismantled thier biggest rival (iraq) and left a power vacuum iran is currently enjoying filling up

[Infidel144]

Iran is supporting Yemen for the same reason America supported the taliban against the Russians.

The Taliban was not formed until 1994. Five years after the Commies left Afghanistan.

[The spartan]

Iran is supporting Yemen for the same reason America supported the taliban against the Russians. It's an opportunity to piss off an enemy with little real footprint or commitment. I doubt it'll escalate too much, Iran doesn't really care about Yemen, they are busy taking advantage of the Syrian situation and the fact America dismantled thier biggest rival (iraq) and left a power vacuum iran is currently enjoying filling up

Of course this isn't about Yemen, it is about the treaty the US reneged on. If Iran is already pushing, why would they suddenly stop if they know the US will never actually challenge them militarily?

[Prodromos]

Yes. Popular uprising in 1979 and..a coup d'etat in 1953 . Read the declassified documents released in 2017 that shed light on CIA's central role in the coup that brought down Mossadegh and fueled a surge of nationalism which culminated in Iranian Revolution of 79. The operation Ajax was ultimately about the western control of the Iranian oil: the UK refused to share oil revenues in Iran; Mossadegh nationalized Iran’s oil industry.
Foreign Relations of the United States, Iran, 1951–1954. This volume complements Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Volume X, Iran, 1951–1954, published in 1989, by providing documentation on the use of covert operations by the Truman and Eisenhower administrations.

Coup d'Etat of 1953 - fondation Mossadegh

I wouldn't call it a coup, since Mossadegh wasn't the legitimate ruler of Iran. The Shah was always in power, with the constitutional authority to appoint and dismiss the prime minister. It was Mossadegh who tried to usurp the Shah's powers, ruling by decree and eventually dissolving parliament entirely - not exactly anyone's idea of a democrat. He was also allied with the Tudeh party, a Soviet proxy.

When the Shah dismissed Mossadegh from office, he refused to accept it and his foreign minister threatened to kill the Shah in retaliation. Eventually, royalist protesters, backed by the army, as well as US and British agents, finally succeeded in arresting Mossadegh and removing him from power, though not without bloodshed.

If Trump dissolved Congress and declared himself absolute dictator, I wouldn't consider it an illegal coup if the military overthrew him, but that's just me.

[Cookiegod]

I kinda gave up on the thread once I heard pearls of wisdom such as Iran being as bad as the Saudis and one shouldn't focus on the US failures when what we're talking about includes the possibility of an American invasion of Iran.

But I just wanna say: Man the MSM haven't been better either. The WSJ propaganda article with only one named person (the spokesman of the Sana'a Yemeni Army) who inequivocally denied their story, and the rest of their story is third hand:

BEIRUT — Houthi militants in Yemen have warned foreign diplomats that Iran is preparing a follow-up strike to the missile and drone attack that crippled Saudi Arabia’s oil industry a week ago, people familiar with the matter said.

So basically some "militants" who could be everything and anything, supposedly overheard something, supposedly warned foreign diplomats, and people familiar with the matter (!) then supposedly told it on to the WSJ. That's 5 mediators between the story and you, even if you were inclined to believe it. But more likely it's simply propaganda. All it needs is one guy in the state department "leaking" this story, which btw. doesn't make much sense to begin with.

But hey. Here's the other example. Putin is obviously trolling. Of all people he has Rohani (and Erdogan) sitting directly next to him and laughing with him. So what does the WP do? Take it seriously and be mad about it.

Or the fact that the Houthis announced a halt to the attacks. Everyone reported it, not one that I saw mentioned that it was conditioned on Saudi Arabia not flying more attacks on them. That premise seems broken.



Back to the claim that people keep reiterating that Yemenis weren't capable of such an attack.

Well how about we ask the Saudis about that? Not their words, but their actions?

Turns out they had a Patriot missile complex on the Abqaiq. Given that the Patriot radar doesn't provide 360° coverage, what direction do you think they had pointed it at? Obviously where they expected the most danger. So northeast towards Iran?

Nope. SouthSouthWest towards Yemen.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I kinda gave up on the thread once I heard pearls of wisdom such as Iran being as bad as the Saudis and one shouldn't focus on the US failures when what we're talking about includes the possibility of an American invasion of Iran.

But I just wanna say: Man the MSM haven't been better either. The WSJ propaganda article with only one named person (the spokesman of the Sana'a Yemeni Army) who inequivocally denied their story, and the rest of their story is third hand:
So basically some "militants" who could be everything and anything, supposedly overheard something, supposedly warned foreign diplomats, and people familiar with the matter (!) then supposedly told it on to the WSJ. That's 5 mediators between the story and you, even if you were inclined to believe it. But more likely it's simply propaganda. All it needs is one guy in the state department "leaking" this story, which btw. doesn't make much sense to begin with.

The allegations in the article were framed in the appropriate context, which is how you have any details to complain about to begin with. Regardless of whether or not the source of the information is later verified or discredited, calling it “propaganda” because the allegations don’t fit your narrative is a far more speculative assertion than anything you accuse the WSJ of doing.


Reporting of the kind in the article eventually forces relevant parties to go on the record and take a position in response. This has proven to be quite useful in bringing the truth to the surface, as seen throughout the brief tenure of the Trump Admin. Iran launches attacks like this all the time, and has been doing so for decades, regardless of whatever the WSJ does or doesn’t do. Best case scenario, the allegations will deter Iran from launching more attacks of this kind in the near future, for fear of lending credibility to the US/Saudi position. Worst case, Iran or the Houthis planted to story to muddy the waters. The US and Saudi Arabia are looking for the “smoking gun” to garner international support. They have little to no incentive to weaken their own position by planting “fake news” about something that hasn’t even happened yet in order to make their case.

[Cookiegod]

The allegations in the article were framed in the appropriate context, which is how you have any details to complain about to begin with. Regardless of whether or not the source of the information is later verified or discredited, calling it “propaganda” because the allegations don’t fit your narrative is a far more speculative assertion than anything you accuse the WSJ of doing.

For the article to be correct, the following assumptions must be true as well:
1) The WSJ wrote this in good faith - not a high risk. Even though the WSJ does engage in disingenuous reporting from time to time, I don't think they'd pull this out of thin air. But still.
2) The "people briefed on the matter" told the WSJ in good faith without ulterior motives - already a huge problem, given that this can only come from one of two places: US governmental institutions, such as embassies, state department, intelligence services; or the Saudis themselves, and the ulterior motives are painfully obvious.
3) The people briefed on the matter received accurate information from the people contacted by the "militants" - same problem as with the second point.
4) The "militants" did indeed warn them - in which case why?! Why the hell would they do that? The US+Saudis are already inflicting them as much pain as they can, AND are currently at their weakest ever. So the only possible scenario where such a warning could take place, would be from a faction within the Sana'a Yemen government that is not content with what's going on. Both the leadership and the base as a whole are very happy about the attacks that took place. What faction that'd be and why is anyone's guess.
5) So let's assume that 4) is true, and we have a faction in the Sana'a leadership that is unhappy about the attacks and warns their archenemies that have so far shown little interest in peace and are at their weakest ever, then you still have to assume they told the truth and weren't playing their own power game.

Those are 5 assumptions that you all have to believe in for this story to be true. It is highly unlikely they all are.

Then the next question becomes as to whether or not such a story makes sense. It doesn't. No one in Yemen stands to gain anything from it. And why would Sana'a proclaim a halt to such attack if they fear a similar one will happen soon and cause them to lose face? Why would anyone there be against these attacks when they essentially result in them having the Saudis and the wider world by the balls? And what exactly are they risking if more attacks happen in the future? The answer is nothing.

So apart from the obvious fact that calling me out on making a "speculative assertion" is total BS to begin with, as I didn't assert it, but merely state that this is far more likely - you're free to tell us how those assumptions listed above somehow are all likely to be correct.

Reporting of the kind in the article eventually forces relevant parties to go on the record and take a position in response. This has proven to be quite useful in bringing the truth to the surface, as seen throughout the brief tenure of the Trump Admin.

Yeah. They did go on the record very quickly. With a firm: "Uhm... No."
Quite the truth that was brought to the surface, innit? Particularly since you choose not to believe it. "Sources" are used for disinformation campaigns all the times. Especially in the middle east, but not only.
Just look at the Russiagate debacle over the past years.

Iran launches attacks like this all the time, and has been doing so for decades, regardless of whatever the WSJ does or doesn’t do.

Iran launches attacks like this all the time? Really? Where? When? I want a list.

Best case scenario, the allegations will deter Iran from launching more attacks of this kind in the near future, for fear of lending credibility to the US/Saudi position.

Why would this groundless claim deter them?

Worst case, Iran or the Houthis planted to story to muddy the waters. The US and Saudi Arabia are looking for the “smoking gun” to garner international support. They have little to no incentive to weaken their own position by planting “fake news” about something that hasn’t even happened yet in order to make their case.

Know what's funny? You're calling me out on "speculative assertions", whilst simultaneously take it for granted that the US & Sauds can tell no lies.

[conon394]

Turns out they had a Patriot missile complex on the Abqaiq. Given that the Patriot radar doesn't provide 360° coverage, what direction do you think they had pointed it at? Obviously where they expected the most danger. So northeast towards Iran?

Nope. SouthSouthWest towards Yemen.

That's problem with buying US air defense until just recently its been deigned by people who started out with a expectation of absolute air and surveillance superiority everywhere. The US military is finally getting its crap in a sock, aside from improvements to the Patriot with some urgency integrating them with the THAAD and hopefully buying the Konsberg/Raytheon ESSM system the US might finally have a real solid air defense set of tools that is not utterly dependent on the assumption it owns the sky. Still kinda sucks to be the House of Saud they got the money but one gets the impression all to many of their acquisitions are vanity buys w/o really looking at a map and noting that have gaps in their air defense. After the US experience in Iraq its hard to see how the place was not covered by C-ram systems as well - at least any Patriot blind spots.

[Cookiegod]

That's problem with buying US air defense until just recently its been deigned by people who started out with a expectation of absolute air and surveillance superiority everywhere. The US military is finally getting its crap in a sock, aside from improvements to the Patriot with some urgency integrating them with the THAAD and hopefully buying the Konsberg/Raytheon ESSM system the US might finally have a real solid air defense set of tools that is not utterly dependent on the assumption it owns the sky. Still kinda sucks to be the House of Saud they got the money but one gets the impression all to many of their acquisitions are vanity buys w/o really looking at a map and noting that have gaps in their air defense. After the US experience in Iraq its hard to see how the place was not covered by C-ram systems as well - at least any Patriot blind spots.

To be completely fair, I'll also refer to this:

Never underestimate the feckless laziness of the Saudis. In my experience they turn off all ATC and air defense systems that require manning or watch keeping when they find them inconvenient as on the weekend.

[conon394]

To be completely fair, I'll also refer to this:

I take the last point as confirmation of mine.

But so we have stuff - easy money spent, but no plan to integrate it and no notice of what you might need now not 20/30 years ago. But to be fair the US army could not come up with better until maybe next year. If you buy from a super power disinterested in air defense you probably can't take to much flak for having bad air defense. But the Sky Guard systems seem out date for such a high value target, by themselves. Realistically you would think somebody would have demanded more redundancy.

[Lord Thesaurian]

For the article to be correct, the following assumptions must be true as well:
1) The WSJ wrote this in good faith - not a high risk. Even though the WSJ does engage in disingenuous reporting from time to time, I don't think they'd pull this out of thin air. But still.
2) The "people briefed on the matter" told the WSJ in good faith without ulterior motives - already a huge problem, given that this can only come from one of two places: US governmental institutions, such as embassies, state department, intelligence services; or the Saudis themselves, and the ulterior motives are painfully obvious.
3) The people briefed on the matter received accurate information from the people contacted by the "militants" - same problem as with the second point.
4) The "militants" did indeed warn them - in which case why?! Why the hell would they do that? The US+Saudis are already inflicting them as much pain as they can, AND are currently at their weakest ever. So the only possible scenario where such a warning could take place, would be from a faction within the Sana'a Yemen government that is not content with what's going on. Both the leadership and the base as a whole are very happy about the attacks that took place. What faction that'd be and why is anyone's guess.
5) So let's assume that 4) is true, and we have a faction in the Sana'a leadership that is unhappy about the attacks and warns their archenemies that have so far shown little interest in peace and are at their weakest ever, then you still have to assume they told the truth and weren't playing their own power game.


Those are 5 assumptions that you all have to believe in for this story to be true. It is highly unlikely they all are.


Then the next question becomes as to whether or not such a story makes sense. It doesn't. No one in Yemen stands to gain anything from it. And why would Sana'a proclaim a halt to such attack if they fear a similar one will happen soon and cause them to lose face? Why would anyone there be against these attacks when they essentially result in them having the Saudis and the wider world by the balls? And what exactly are they risking if more attacks happen in the future? The answer is nothing.


So apart from the obvious fact that calling me out on making a "speculative assertion" is total BS to begin with, as I didn't assert it, but merely state that this is far more likely - you're free to tell us how those assumptions listed above somehow are all likely to be correct.

That’s not a list of anything pertaining to the veracity of the article. If it’s relevant at all, it would constitute a list of things that must be true for both the article and your narrative about it to be accurate simultaneously. The article needn’t conform to your foregone conclusions about propaganda and ambiguous “bad faith” actors in order to not be propaganda, let alone for the reported allegations to be true or false.

Yeah. They did go on the record very quickly. With a firm: "Uhm... No."
Quite the truth that was brought to the surface, innit? Particularly since you choose not to believe it.

I do believe Iran was behind the first attack(s) and that there’s no reason to believe they’re “done.” You yourself noted that the level of US sanctions leaves fewer incentives for Iran to avoid increasingly aggressive actions. Whether or not I endorse any particular position on the allegations specific to the WSJ article has nothing to do with your doubling and tripling down on allusions to “propaganda” and “bad faith” actors. The latter is especially odd, given you apparently regard a particular source reported in the same “propaganda” article as “the truth.”

Iran launches attacks like this all the time? Really? Where? When? I want a list.

Huh? You yourself were already going back and forth with another poster on that subject in this very thread. Moreover:

I believe the article I provided previously is a decent primer on more recent events, though I’m sure we could spend all day going over individual events during 40 years of terrorism and whether this or that counts according to which proxy group or by whose definition.

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

Why would this groundless claim deter them?

This question was answered in the same quoted portion of my post. Point is, there are umpteen “likely” possibilities other than your “bad faith US/Saudi propaganda” schtick you’re seeking to use as a metric of journalistic integrity.

Know what's funny? You're calling me out on "speculative assertions", whilst simultaneously take it for granted that the US & Sauds can tell no lies.

Your assertion here is a strawman. You dismissed an entire article as “likely” bad faith propaganda merely because you don’t like the allegations reported in said article. I made no assumptions or assertions about US/Saudi being “unable to lie.” In fact I further stipulated it’s unlikely they’d put forth anonymous allegations about future events which they know in advance to be false, precisely because they already are working uphill against their existing credibility problem. Time will tell whether the allegations were true or not, regardless of your narrative on this issue, or your assertions regarding the WSJ’s reporting of said allegations.

[Love Mountain]

The bigger issue at play here isn't the supremacy of either Iran or KSA. The issue here is the inability for any administration to create compromise in the region. I'd point everyone to Russia, who has successfully navigated a multitude of conflicting interests and parties to achieve, probably less than desired, but nevertheless a successful result. Russia has achieved a balance in Syria, while managing to sell weapons to everyone, and keep everyone from openly going at each other's throats. Whereas United States seems intent on maintaining a specific hierarchy regardless of whether it leads to conflict or not. This is a concern, especially in a region where we've already expended so much treasure that has only rewarded us with more expenditures rather than returns.

Still absolute crickets on the humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen of course. God bless.

[Lord Thesaurian]

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Britain, Germany and France backed the United States and blamed Iran on Monday for an attack on Saudi oil facilities, urging Tehran to agree to new talks with world powers on its nuclear and missile programs and regional security issues.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1W81TK

Whether this will amount to anything of substance is anyone’s guess. It’s certainly a change in tone from major European powers, who have been working with Iran to bypass some US sanctions. What’s interesting is that a) Europe seems to be coming to terms with the demise of the JCPA and b) are putting the onus on Iran to renegotiate a deal involving not just its nuclear but also its missile program. If memory serves, it was European pressure that convinced Obama to drop contingencies on Iranian missile and delivery systems from the JCPA in the first place.

[Common Soldier]

I wouldn't call it a coup, since Mossadegh wasn't the legitimate ruler of Iran. The Shah was always in power, with the constitutional authority to appoint and dismiss the prime minister. It was Mossadegh who tried to usurp the Shah's powers, ruling by decree and eventually dissolving parliament entirely - not exactly anyone's idea of a democrat. He was also allied with the Tudeh party, a Soviet proxy.

When the Shah dismissed Mossadegh from office, he refused to accept it and his foreign minister threatened to kill the Shah in retaliation. Eventually, royalist protesters, backed by the army, as well as US and British agents, finally succeeded in arresting Mossadegh and removing him from power, though not without bloodshed.

If Trump dissolved Congress and declared himself absolute dictator, I wouldn't consider it an illegal coup if the military overthrew him, but that's just me.

The scenario you envision is not possible under rhe US Constitution. US elections are held at fixed dates, unlike a prime minister the President cannot dissolve Congress and call a new election The President would gave to perform a coup himself to dissolved Congress. Or declare Martial Law, but that would be challenged in the Supreme Court, and his martial law declaration would be overturned.

As far as the attack goes, I am coming to the conclusion it really was the Houthis who did the attack, very likely with Iranian support. But sti thd Houthis were the primary driver's. I just don't see what Iran would really gain in such an attack. It might drive the price of oil up, which might benefit Iran slightly, but I still don't see it worth the potential fallout from the attack.

I do see Iran supporting their allies, if the Houthis decided to launch the attack, by providing technical support. But what kind of support was needed to launch thr drone attack? If the Houthhis paid enough money. Could they hire civilian contractors to help them launch the attack?

Maybe Iran's only role was to give the Houthis the name of contacts that could provide the Houthis the support they needed. I imagine these kinds of people you don't look up in the Yellow pages. If Iran is innocent, then all this blaming them wis counterproductive.