Saudi
Arabia wants its allies to believe Tehran launched attacks on its oil
facilities, even though the one thing their evidence proves is the
Iranian-made arms. Even so, Donald Trump will unlikely greenlight a
war against Iran.
‘Made
in Iran’ is not ‘launched by Iran’
The
possibility that Iranian-made missiles were used in the attack on the
Saudi oil plants isn’t a huge revelation, Viktor Murakhovsky,
military analyst and editor-in-chief of Arsenal of the Fatherland
magazine, told RT.
Showcasing
the wreckage from the missiles and drones that struck Abqaiq and
Khurais facilities might have proven this point, but those were
identified as soon as first photos of the debris emerged in wake of
the strikes. Iran has developed such “long-range cruise missiles”
on the basis of Soviet Kh-55 missile, which it bought from Ukraine in
early 2000s, Murakhovsky said.
But
it doesn’t prove in any way that Tehran had anything to do with the
attack and that the strikes [on Saudi petrol plants] originated from
the Iranian territory.
Despite
the attack being claimed by the Houthi rebels in Yemen, Riyadh on
Wednesday insisted that it couldn’t have been launched from Yemeni
territory and was “unquestionably
sponsored by Iran.”One
of the arguments made was that the Houthis were not capable of
carrying out such an attack. Murakhovsky disputes this.
“There’s
no secret that Iran supplies weaponry and military hardware to the
Houthis in Yemen and cruise missiles could’ve well been among those
deliveries,” he said. If so, such missiles are “not difficult”
to operate and the Houthi forces didn’t need any help from Iranian
specialists to carry out the attack on their own, the military expert
said.
‘Trump
knows striking Iran is a bad idea’
What
the Saudi report basicaly says is that “the weaponry could’ve
been supplied, and probably was, by Iran in exactly the same way that
[the UK] and others have suppled arms to Saudi Arabia, which had been
used in this four-year war against Yemen,” Matthew Gordon-Banks,
former British MP and senior research fellow at the UK Defense
Academy, told RT.
But
by coming up with accusations against their main geopolitical rivals
in Tehran, Riyadh “tends to expect the US to do its dirty work for
them” – meaning a retaliatory strike on Iran.
However,
they are unlikely to achieve their goal as US President Donald Trump
knows that “no matter what his advisors may say, a strike against
Iran could have devastating consequences throughout the Gulf and
internationally.”
Iran
is a “strong, self-sufficient country, with large territory and
capable military,” and this means no rash moves from Washington
should be expected before the 2020 election, Aitech Bizhev, former
Deputy Commander of the Air Force for the CIS, said.
“The
majority of those, who voted for Trump don’t want war,” Bizhev
added, suggesting that the US will continue sanctioning Tehran and
will only resort to cold war moves aimed at maintaining tensions in
oil-rich Persian Gulf.
What's
the end game here? Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has just
arrived in Jeddah for talks with Saudi leaders over a response to the
weekend attacks on two of the kingdom's major oil facilities.
After
a prior press conference by the Saudi Defense Ministry where it
for the first time assigned
public blame on Iran for the attacks which initially knocked out half
of the kingdom's daily oil output, saying the air attacks
"unquestionably" had Iranian state sponsorship, Pompeo has
announced the
Aramco attacks constitute
an "act of war" by Iran.
And
President Trump himself said Wednesday from the White House that it
looks like Iran did it but that he
still hopes to avoid war.
He
announced via a statement on Twitter that, "I have just
instructed the Secretary of the Treasury to substantially increase
Sanctions on the country of Iran!" — in
what appears an alternative to launching a military response.
"I'm
not looking to get into new conflict, but sometimes you have
to,"Trump
told reporters Wednesday.
Pompeo's
new "act of war" declaration indeed takes the potential for
escalation right back to boiling point.
Pompeo
is in Jeddah where he's expected to meet with Saudi Crown Prince
Mohammed bin Salman to evaluate a possible response and
to "coordinate efforts to counter Iranian aggression in the
region," according to a
State Department statement.
"We
were blessed that there were no Americans killed in this attack but
any time you have an act of war of this nature, there’s always risk
that that could happen,” Pompeo said.
“This
is an attack of a scale we’ve just not seen before,” he
added later speaking to reporters off-camera just before landing in
Jeddah.
Meanwhile,
if the 'military option' is being considered, it appears we could be
in the beginning phases of an international coalition response. UK
Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced he and Trump held a phone call
to discuss the need for a "united diplomatic response from
international partners" after the Aramco attacks.
Wednesday's Saudi Def. Ministry press briefing showcasing missile and drone debris alleged "evidence" the Iranians were behind attack.
The
fact that Johnson's statement included the word "diplomatic"
- along with Trump's emphasis on extending stronger sanctions - is a
good sign however, that the White House is not prepping for war.
Below
is the transcript of Pompeo's statements where he described “an
Iranian attack” that was an “act of war” via
CNN:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.