Who has attacked Iranian oil tanker?

Reportedly, an Iranian oil tanker Sabiti was hit by missiles in Red Sea waters off Saudi Arabia on Friday. The incident is likely to further heighten friction in the region already rattled by attacks on tankers and oil installations since May. Oil prices rose on the news of the incident and industry sources said it could drive up already high shipping costs.

The Red Sea is a major global shipping route for oil and other trade, linking the Indian Ocean with the Mediterranean via the Suez Canal.

It is the latest incident involving oil tankers in the Red Sea and Gulf region, and may ratchet up tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia, long-time regional adversaries fighting a proxy war in Yemen, at the southern end of the Red Sea.

There was no claim of responsibility for the reported incident and it has yet to be independently confirmed.

The proximity of the tanker at the time of the attack to Saudi Arabia’s Jeddah port gives western media to allege that the missiles could have been launched from the kingdom.

Another plausible theory could be that the ship was hit in an Israeli sabotage operation. The purpose would be to disrupt Iranian tanker activity in the Red Sea corridor as it heads toward the Suez Canal. A third possibility would be that the attack was conducted by a terrorist group.

An Iranian government spokesman has described targeting of an Iranian-owned oil tanker by missiles as a “cowardly attack” and said Iran would respond after the facts had been studied.

“Iran is avoiding haste, carefully examining what has happened and probing facts,” government spokesman Ali Rabei, siad.

Separately, a senior security official said video evidence had provided leads about the incident, adding that the Sabiti was hit by two missiles.

“A special committee has been set up to investigate the attack on Sabiti... with two missiles and its report will soon be submitted to the authorities for decision,” said Ali Shamkhani, secretary of Iran’s top security body.

“Piracy and mischief on international waterways aimed at making commercial shipping insecure will not go unanswered,” he said.

According to Iranian sources, leakage of cargo from the tanker has been stopped as it heads for the Gulf. The tanker is heading for Persian Gulf waters and it was expected to enter Iranian waters safely. Nasrollah Sardashti, head of National Iranian Tanker Company (NITC) that owns the damaged tanker, said the crew was safe and the vessel would reach Iranian waters within 10 days.

Saudi Arabia said it received a distress message from the damaged tanker but the vessel kept moving and switched off its transponder before it could be provide assistance.

The United States has been balaming Iran for attacks on tankers in the Gulf in May and June as well as for strikes on Saudi oil sites in September. Tehran has denied having a role in any of them.

The U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet, which operates in the region, said it was aware of the reports but had no further information.

According to western media, at times, Iranian narratives offer diverging accounts. State-run television, citing the national oil company, said the tanker was hit by missiles while denying a report they came from Saudi Arabia.

It also said, Iran’s Foreign Ministry said the ship was hit twice, without saying what struck it. State television broadcast images from the Sabiti’s deck saying they were taken after the attack but showing no visible damage. The ship’s hull was not in view.

Political risk consultancy Eurasia Group said it did not have firm evidence about who may have been behind the incident.

Media in United States in the grip of intelligence agents

Some of my blog readers did not like a term coined by me “Dishonest Western Media”. Today I got an opportunity to read an article in "Information Clearing House", I am happy to share it verbatim.

After years in the shadows overseeing espionage, kill programs, warrantless wiretapping, entrapment, psyops and other covert operations, national security establishment retirees are are turning to a new line of work where they can carry out their imperial duties.

That is, propagandizing the public on cable news. Reborn as cable news pundits, these people are cashing in. So many years working in the dark, only to emerge in the studio lights of the same networks that rail all day everyday against state TV from countries that America hates.

It may look crazy how many former spooks have been hired at corporate news outlets like CNN and MSNBC as “analysts”. After spending their careers serving the national security state, they get to shape the news under the guise of expertise. It’s like state TV

Following is but a partial list of prominent former spooks turned mainstream media pundits and analysts, to say nothing of the even greater numbers of retired generals the network continuously rely on. 

Former CIA Director John Brennan who is now an NBC News senior national security and intelligence analyst

Fran Townsend, former homeland security advisor to George W. Bush. She's now a CBS News senior national security analyst. 

But CNN takes the cake — it's the biggest spook show of all

Jim Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence, now a CNN national security analyst

Retired General Michael Hayden, former director of the CIA and the NSA, now a CNN national security analyst

Asha Rangappa, former FBI special agent, now CNN legal analyst

James Gagliano, a retired FBI supervisory special agent, now a CNN law enforcement analyst

Tony Bliken, former deputy secretary of state and former deputy national security advisor, and now CNN global affairs analyst

Mike Rogers, former chair of the House Intelligence Committee, now CNN national security commentator

Samantha Vinograd senior advisor to the national security advisor under President Obama, now CNN national security analyst

Steven Hall, retired CIA chief of Russia operations, now a CNN national security analyst

Philip Mudd, former CIA counter-terrorism official, now CNN counter-terrorism analyst

If Strait of Hormuz Blocked, Can Saudi Arab Overcome Oil Supply Crisis?

After 14/9 attacks on Aramco installations, some critics doubted the capacity of Saudi Arabia to guarantee adequate and uninterrupted oil flows to the market. The narrative of these analysts is not based on current situation but a temporary closure of the Strait of Hormuz, in case of a full blown war between Saudi Arab and Iran. They conclude, Saudi Arabia may be capable of doing a lot, but saving the global economy if the Gulf explodes is not one of its capabilities.

They say, Saudi Arab will not be able to keep the necessary crude oil and products volumes flowing to Asian and European markets in the case of blockade of Strait of Hormuz, even though Saudi Arab owns and operates a crude oil pipeline with a capacity of 5 million bpd, carrying crude 1,200 kilometers between the Arabian Gulf and Red Sea.

They also say, Saudi move to stabilize the current market is praiseworthy, especially just before the upcoming meeting of OPEC+ in Vienna. Saudi Arab has been saying that it is capable of supplying sufficient crude through the Red Sea, reiterating that the necessary pipeline and terminal infrastructure is there. These critics say, Saudi Arab can only assure its supply, which may be not higher this summer than around the level this pipeline can support. The real issue, if it comes to a full-blown conflict, is that not only Saudi oil is being threatened.

Reportedly, around 20 million bpd of crude and petroleum products are transported via the Strait of Hormuz, at present. Saudi exports are significant, but other countries include UAE, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and Iran, who will have to explore alternative routes. They warn, any military action in the region can cause a temporary disruption for all maritime traffic.

Besides the options that are the already on the table, such as the Saudi onshore pipeline and the UAE’s Fujairah pipeline, no other real alternatives are available, as overland trucking or rail transport is minimal. Transferring volumes via the Saudi and UAE’s pipelines is not an option at all, as the total capacity of the two is less than 10 million bpd, representing not even 50% of the current maritime flows through Hormuz. Another thing that should be noted is that pipelines can’t ship crude and crude products at the same time.

Another consequence of a blockade would be that most available VLCCs and other tankers will either be in the Persian Gulf and blocked or will not be able to be rerouted, before the market finds solution days and probably weeks will have gone by and a price spike for all products cannot be ruled out.

Only a few analysts are talking about oilfield security and pipeline availability. Any military advisor will put these options as part of his or her 1st phase military action plan. If Iran were to be attacked, or faces a surgical strike by an opponent, all Arab oil and gas infrastructure will become a legitimate offensive target, least in the eyes of Tehran and its proxies.

Looking at the majority of oil and gas production assets and infrastructure in the Arab world, especially in Saudi Arabia, UAE or even Iraq, everything is in reach of short-distance missiles, fighter jets, and even drones. Any move against Iran will result in a full-scale attack on Saudi’s Eastern Province, which produces 80% of all its oil and gas, Abu Dhabi’s offshore oil infrastructure and the regional pipelines. Looking at history, denying energy access and diminishing the opponent’s stability are on top of military strategy.

At present, oil market is a victim of geopolitical power projections of emotional leaders superseding rationality. The continuing references to Iran-Iraq tanker war during 1980-1988 is out of touch with reality. At this time, it is not going to be Iran denying support or trade with Iraq, but a possible Arab-Iranian confrontation, led by the US if no countermeasures are being implemented.

Iran Saudi Rapprochement

According to media reports Saudi Arabia has given a green light to Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi to arrange a meeting with Iran as a first step towards deescalating tensions in the region.

Abbas al-Hasnawi, an official in the prime minister’s office, informed that Abdul Mahdi was mediating between the leaderships in Riyadh and Tehran and had communicated each side’s conditions for talks to the other.

The remarks came after Iranian government spokesman Ali Rabiei said Saudi Arabia had sent messages to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani via the leaders of some countries.

Hasnawi confirmed that Abdul Mahdi was acting as a mediator with the aim of easing tensions after Iran was alleged for September 14 attacks on Saudi oil facilities.

“The Iraqi leadership has channels with both sides. Our Sunni brothers [in the government] liaise with the Saudis and our Shia brothers with the Iranians,” he said.

“The Saudis have conditions before the negotiations process starts and the same with Iranians. We have liaised these conditions to each side. It is not an easy task to get together two opposite sides in terms of their ideology, sect and their alliances in the region.”

Earlier, the Iraqi prime minister had said he believed Saudi Arabia was looking to deescalate tensions with Iran.

In an interview with Al Jazeera, he said that it is in everybody’s interest to prevent further war in the region.

“Nobody possesses the weapons necessary to deal their adversary a fatal blow. Chaos and destruction will hit the region in its entirety,” he said.

“Everybody is open to dialogue,” he said. “Iran says [it is] willing to negotiate if sanctions are lifted; the U.S. [also] asks for dialogue ... neither does Saudi Arabia close the door for dialogue,” Abdul Hadi added.

“There are many countries, and Iraq is one of them, that can offer a solution or a place for a solution to be found.”

In an interview with the CBS program “60 Minutes” broadcast, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said he preferred a political resolution rather than a military one to the issues with Iran.

A war with Iran would lead to “a total collapse of the global economy”, he said, as he called for a political solution and backed talks between US President Donald Trump and Iran’s leaders.  

“The political and peaceful solution is much better than the military one,” he added.

Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani welcomed the Saudi crown prince’s willingness to resolve disputes with Tehran through talks, saying Iran’s doors are open to the Saudis.

Larijani said if Iran and Saudi Arabia hold talks, many of the region’s security and political problems would be resolved.

“We want to create a security system in the Persian Gulf with cooperation of all Persian Gulf states,” said Larijani.

Tensions in the Persian Gulf have heightened following the attack on Saudi oil fields, for which Riyadh and their Western allies, especially the US blamed Iran.

Iran has rejected the claim that it is behind the attack on the Saudi oil sites, calling it a “great deceit” in line with “great pressure” campaign on the Islamic Republic.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said last month that “even the Saudis themselves don't believe the fiction of Iranian involvement” in the attacks on the Aramco oil facilities.

Western Media Adamant at Initiating War between Saudi Arabia and Iran

It may not be wrong to say that the western media loves when the United States bombs countries. Even at present such media houses are adamant at starting war between Saudi Arabia and Iran by propagating anti-Iran narrative and running it again and again. There is consensus that they use the content till attack on Iran becomes a reality. Most of the coverage on Aramco attack, accuse Iran for the attacks.

Surprisingly, neither the US nor Saudi Arabia have so far presented or shared any credible evidence that can prove Iran launched the attack on Aramco. Riyadh put on display a wreckage of what it said were remnants of weapons used in the attacks. It was claimed the wreckage showed the attacks were unquestionably sponsored by Tehran, but many believe the assemblage of junk were not the concrete evidence.

When US President Donald Trump decided to impose yet another round of sanctions to punish the people of Iran for what there is no public proof of, western media was furious that he has backed away from an all-out war. They are demanding why he is not initiating another military conflict in the Middle East.

The latest series of strikes on Saudi Arabian targets this year, were launched from south-western Iran using drones and cruise missiles. The strike on Aramco fits in the pattern of Yemeni strikes against Saudi economic infrastructure. There is no plausible reason to believe Iran was behind the attacks, and it’s even unclear if Iran has indirectly played a role in the attacks. Although the US government and establishment media often call the Houthis a proxy of Iran, it is an independent force grown out of decades-long conflict in Yemen. The extent to which Iran offers support to the Yemeni forces has never been established.

A columnist suggested Iran was behind the attack. A paragraph says,” Iran has been testing drones and supplying them to regional allies such as Hezbollah for years. It was also said that the missiles were reportedly able to evade Saudi air defenses.

Another article “United States sending troops to bolster Saudi defenses after attack”, says the US officials told that Southwest Iran was the staging ground for the attack that might has been authorized by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The article says, an assessment based at least in part on still-classified imagery showing Iran appearing to prepare an aerial strike.

A pep into the recent history tells, when President Trump ordered missile strike on Syria’s Shayrat Air Base in April 2017, it was widely admired by the western media. A day after the attack a reporter said he thinks Trump had just became President of the United States. Another asserted he has put the credibility of American power,” and yet another claimed, “We finally have a man who knows the difference between right and wrong and good and evil, and it makes us proud.”

All this was not new, in the past the barrage of propaganda directed at the American public forced them believe that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11 attacks. That was a significant achievement in manipulation. The poll results must have been news for the Iraqi dictator himself, a forgotten one-time American ally, who fought a proxy war with Iran, spread over a decade.

Have Moscow and Tehran essentially turned away from United States Dollar?

“Russia and Iran will transfer payments using an alternative system to the internationally recognized SWIFT money transfer network, Governor of Iranian central bank, Abdolnaser Hemmati”, has announced.

Instead of SWIFT, a system that facilitates cross-border payments between 11,000 financial institutions in more than 200 countries worldwide, the two countries will use their own domestically developed financial messaging systems – Iran’s SEPAM and Russia’s SPFS.

“Using this system for trade and business exchanges between EAEU (Eurasian Economic Union) member states can help develop and expand trade exchanges between the member states as well,” Abdolnaser Hemmati said.

Tehran is set to officially join the Russia-led free-trade zone, the EAEU shortly. The document on Iran’s participation was ratified in June by the nation’s parliament (Majlis) and President Hassan Rouhani has already ordered that the free trade zone agreement be implemented.

Earlier this month, Russian presidential aide Yury Ushakov said that Tehran and Moscow are developing an alternative to SWIFT. Russia began development of SPFS in 2014 amid Washington’s threats to disconnect the country from SWIFT.

The first transaction on the SPFS network involving a non-bank enterprise was made in December 2017. Around 500 participants, including major Russian financial institutions and companies, have already joined the payment channel, while some foreign banks have shown interest in joining.

Last year, Belgium-based SWIFT cut off some Iranian banks from its messaging system. It came after US President Donald Trump abandoned the landmark nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic and resumed US sanctions against Tehran.

Moscow and Tehran have essentially turned away from the greenback in bilateral trade, and are using the Ruble and Rial for payments. Turning to cross-currency trade was a vital issue for both Russia and Iran, and the two countries are planning to use all available means to boost these efforts.

“We have already essentially dropped the dollar in cooperation with the Iranians, we will rely on the Russian Ruble and the Iranian Rial, [and] in case of urgent need, on the Euro, if we have no other options,” the diplomat said. He added that banking structures in both countries have the potential to cope with this “difficult” task.

Despite efforts by European countries to keep trading with the Islamic Republic after the US pulled out of the nuclear agreement, their efforts still do not fully address Tehran’s interests, Dzhagaryan believes.

The diplomat said that the payment system recently created by France, Germany and the UK to facilitate trade with Iran raises “more questions than it answers,” claiming that it does not change the state of affairs for Tehran.

He explained that the Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (INSTEX) covers only items not blacklisted by the US, but does not apply to vital sectors of trade for Iran.

“Oil is the most important [sector] for Iran. It is a huge question if Europe can allow the proper volume of oil exports and flow of revenue to the Iranian budget,” Dzhagaryan stated. “EU countries should show that they can carry independent foreign policy without fearing any warnings from overseas partners.”

Russia along with several other countries, including India, China and Turkey – has been accelerating efforts to fight the dominance of the US currency in global trade amid rising tensions with Washington. Last year, Russian President Vladimir Putin called on the member states of the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) to create a common dollar-less payment system for boosting economic sovereignty. The bloc, which consists of Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan and Armenia, has free trade agreements with multiple partners across the globe, including Iran and China.

Will United States Attack Iran?

The United States has openly accused Iran for the drone and cruise missile attacks on Saudi Arabia’s largest oil refinery. Now the question is what will it do in response? 

The attacks have not affected the sole surviving super power. On the contrary, the US will benefit the most from the hike in oil prices, which has overtaken Saudi Arabia as the largest oil producing country.

There is a temptation for the US to let the attacks slip into history. The US has formed an anti-Iran alliance in which Saudi Arabia is a key player. Doing nothing would put the coalition into question. Failing to respond to an Iranian attack on a vital Saudi facility could help Iran increase its power throughout the region.

Donald Trump’s inclination has been to avoid initiating direct military action against Iran but applying economic pressure. He has maneuvered to minimize and halt active military engagement. Military action would not only contradict the US strategy, but also endanger other alliance members.

An alternative option would be to introduce new sanctions, but there are two problems with this move. First, sanctions do not have the psychological impact and second, the US has already imposed sanctions on Iran and any more sanctions would have only limited effects.

The US could impose a blockade on Iranian ports and close of Strait of Hormuz. This strategy has three weaknesses. First, a large naval force of multiple carrier battle groups would have to be deployed for a potentially unlimited time. Second, the fleet could come under attack from Iranian missiles. To counter this, anti-missile air attacks as well as defensive measures would be needed, creating a second potentially costly dimension to this operation. Finally, such a blockade is by definition without a terminal point. If Iran does not fold under the pressure, the blockade could continue indefinitely, since ending it without a successful outcome would be seen as a defeat.

Another possible response would be to launch air strikes against Iran. The most appropriate target would be the factories producing drones and cruise missiles, along with storage facilities and so on. However, the biggest problem will be getting accurate intelligence. Acting on poor information could result in an Iranian strike on US forces or another sensitive site under informal American protection.

As regards an air campaign, history has shown that these tend to take much longer than expected and sometimes fail altogether. Any US attempt to eliminate Iran’s strike capability can be costly and hidden Iranian missiles can attack regional targets. An air campaign can go on indefinitely without yielding the desired results.

As for sending in ground troops, the US military fully deployed can defeat the Iranian military and take terrain, but to hold it against a hostile militia would create interminable conflict with casualties that cannot be sustained. Iran is a big and rugged country, with a population of 82 million people, more than twice as large as Iraq or Afghanistan. And the idea that US troops would be greeted as liberators is mere fantasy.

The US has been concerned about Iran’s expanding political influence, which also creates potential targets that are of high value to Iran. Hitting these targets would be less daunting as compared to attacks on Iran. Iran has its own or proxy forces in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. It has invested a great deal of time, resources and risk in creating these forces that are now holding territory in these countries.

Doing nothing could well destroy the anti-Iran bloc the US has worked hard to create. The likely but not certain answer to this problem will be a symbolic retaliation. The problem with retaliations, however, is that they get out of hand