Saudi Arabia accuses Iran of ordering drone attack on oil pipeline

[snoop1130]

Saudi Arabia accuses Iran of ordering drone attack on oil pipeline

 

File Photo: Saudi Arabia's Deputy Defence Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman attends the annual Moscow Conference on International Security (MCIS) in Moscow, Russia April 24, 2019. REUTERS/Maxim Shemetov

 

RIYADH (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia's deputy defence minister on Thursday accused Iran of ordering an attack on Saudi oil pumping stations that Yemen's Iran-aligned Houthi militia has claimed responsibility for.

 

The attack "proves that these militias are merely a tool that Iran's regime uses to implement its expansionist agenda," tweeted Prince Khalid bin Salman, a son of King Salman.

 

"The terrorist acts, ordered by the regime in Tehran, and carried out by the Houthis, are tightening the noose around the ongoing political efforts."

 

The Houthis, which have been battling a Saudi-led military coalition in Yemen for four years, said they carried out Tuesday's drone strikes against the East-West pipeline, which caused a fire but Riyadh said did not disrupt output or exports.

 

Other Saudi officials fired off similar tweets, ratcheting up pressure on the kingdom's regional arch enemy amid heightened tension between Washington and Tehran over sanctions and U.S. military presence in the Gulf.

 

"The Houthis are an integral part of the Revolutionary Guard forces of Iran and follow their orders, as proven by them targeting installations in the kingdom," Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Adel al-Jubeir tweeted.

 

The ambassador to Yemen followed up, writing that the Houthis had "made Yemen a platform for Iranian terrorism against Yemenis and their interests, and a tool to attack Saudi Arabia."

 

The coalition, which receives arms and intelligence from Western nations, carried out air strikes on Thursday in and around the Houthi-held capital Sanaa. It intervened in 2015 to restore Yemen's internationally-recognised government.

 

The drone attack happened two days after four vessels, including two Saudi oil tankers, were damaged by sabotage off the coast of the United Arab Emirates. The other ships were a Norwegian-registered oil products tanker and a UAE-flagged bunker barge.

 

The UAE has not blamed anyone for that incident, which is being investigated and from which Iran has distanced itself. On Wednesday, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Gargash said the UAE would show restraint and was committed to de-escalation.

 

U.S. officials believe Iran encouraged the Houthis or Iraq-based Shi'ite militias to carry out the attack, two U.S. government sources have said. One source said Washington does not have evidence that Iranian personnel played any direct operational role.

 

The attacks took place against a backdrop of U.S.-Iranian tension following Washington’s decision this month to try to cut Tehran's oil exports to zero and beef up its military presence in the Gulf in response to what it called Iranian threats.

 

Saudi Arabia and the UAE back the sanctions against Iran, a fellow OPEC producer but regional foe.

 

Tehran has called the U.S. military presence "a target" rather than a threat, and said it would not allow its oil exports to be halted.

 

Iran's foreign minister has said “extremist individuals” in the U.S. government were pursuing dangerous policies and Tehran is not seeking confrontation.

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-05-16

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[from the home of CC]

reapin' what was sown..

[Puchaiyank]

Iran has spent years positioning itself in middle eastern countries so that it could start some mischief with the Saudis...

 

I have no dog in this fight...but I do find it curious that 2 factions of one of the world's great religions...claim moral superiority and would gladly annihilate one another...

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Puchaiyank said:

Iran has spent years positioning itself in middle eastern countries so that it could start some mischief with the Saudis...

 

I have no dog in this fight...but I do find it curious that 2 factions of one of the world's great religions...claim moral superiority and would gladly annihilate one another...

We already know that the UAE, very closely allied to the Saudis, invented some fake news which the Saudis used to justify their break with Qatar. So why start believing them now?

[Kiwiken]

U.S. officials believe Iran encouraged the Houthis or Iraq-based Shi'ite militias to carry out the attack, two U.S. government sources have said. One source said Washington does not have evidence that Iranian personnel played any direct operational role.

But the Americans do not believe that they themselves, The Saudis or the Emiraties have done nothing to rile up these groups.

Gulf of Tonkin excuse coming up soon?

[Morch]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

We already know that the UAE, very closely allied to the Saudis, invented some fake news which the Saudis used to justify their break with Qatar. So why start believing them now?

 

Pretty much all countries in the region are into playing fake news games and such. Same goes for denials of involvement in all sort of attacks, or support of militant/terrorist groups. Could be a UAE/Saudi thing, could be an Iranian effort. No particular reason to have much faith in either party on this one.

[bristolboy]

19 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Pretty much all countries in the region are into playing fake news games and such. Same goes for denials of involvement in all sort of attacks, or support of militant/terrorist groups. Could be a UAE/Saudi thing, could be an Iranian effort. No particular reason to have much faith in either party on this one.

Except of course there is the question of cui bono. And then there is the line pushed by some that the Houthis are catspaws for the Iranians.  And the dubious claim of the Saudis that their ships were attacked in the Gulf. They failed to produce any evidence of that whereas the Norwegians were quite willing to show the hole in their ship. And there is MsB's demonstrated dishonesty and psychopathy.

[Morch]

16 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Except of course there is the question of cui bono. And then there is the line pushed by some that the Houthis are catspaws for the Iranians.  And the dubious claim of the Saudis that their ships were attacked in the Gulf. They failed to produce any evidence of that whereas the Norwegians were quite willing to show the hole in their ship. And there is MsB's demonstrated dishonesty and psychopathy.

 

The question of "cui bono" is not always a factor. For example, actions can be taken without either full authorization or endorsement. Factions within parties may see different courses of action as beneficial. Even if "cui bono" applies, the possibilities do not exclude Iran.

 

As posted on another related topic, the haste in which posters demand evidence and proof appears to be somewhat related to the issue discussed. Sometimes it's wait-and-see, sometimes it isn't. The Saudi claims might be dubious, then again, the Norwegian claim apparently isn't. 

Edited May 16, 2019 by Morch

[bristolboy]

Just now, Morch said:

 

The question of "cui bono" is not always a factor. For example, actions can be taken without either full authorization or endorsement. Factions within parties may see different courses of action as beneficial.

Even if "cui bono" applies, the possibilities do not exclude Iran.

 

As posted on another related topic, the haste in which posters demand evidence and proof appears to be somewhat related to the issue discussed. Sometimes it's wait-and-see, sometimes it isn't. The Saudi claims might be dubious, then again, the Norwegian claim apparently isn't. 

But there is the question of likelihood. And it's clear that the Saudis and the UAE are pushing for military action by the US

[Morch]

Just now, bristolboy said:

But there is the question of likelihood. And it's clear that the Saudis and the UAE are pushing for military action by the US

 

Yes, there is. Addressed in a general manner in a previous post. It is also clear that there is more than one Iranian views on things. Given past instances, carrying out or sponsoring such attacks isn't unheard of. And so long as (possible) involvement isn't publicly exposed, some on there might see it as a "win".

 

[toenail]

The USA already fought a war for the Saudis when Iraq invaded Kuwait. (Gulf War) Now young American soldiers will be asked to protect this spoiled nation again. 

[Scott]

Off-topic posts removed.

 

[candide]

23 minutes ago, car720 said:

This goes way back to Cain and Abel.

Only to Ali.

[Srikcir]

From https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/two-saudi-oil-tankers-attacked-in-the-persian-gulf-amid-rising-iran-tensions/2019/05/13/c8907108-755e-11e9-bd25-c989555e7766_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.69fcb6227c85

• A statement from Thome Ship Management, the owners of the Norwegian-flagged vessel, said an “unknown object” had created a hole in the hull of one of its ships, the MT Andrea Victory. Photographs of the ship showing a hole just above the waterline have been published (my italcs) - so not a sea mine?
• Neither Saudi Arabia nor the United Arab Emirates produced photographs to support claims that Saudi tankers had been damaged. Saudi Energy Minister Khalid Falih said the apparent attacks did not cause any casualties or oil spills, and they did not attribute blame for the apparent sabotage.

[fvw53]

14 hours ago, Puchaiyank said:

Iran has spent years positioning itself in middle eastern countries so that it could start some mischief with the Saudis...

 

I have no dog in this fight...but I do find it curious that 2 factions of one of the world's great religions...claim moral superiority and would gladly annihilate one another...

...this is what happens when competing religious establishments claim to have exclusive rights as "administrators" of the Almighty God on this planet /  in Europe they had a 100 year war about this which ended in 1648 when both sides were exhausted / in our lifetime the advanced weapons will not require a war of 100 years.  IMHO the Wahabbi's are trying to create incidents which would drag the USA in the war they want with the Shia's ...but Trump does not seem to be eager to take the bait

[spidermike007]

Saudi Arabia has no credibility whatsoever, at this stage. They have shown themselves to be disingenuous, liars, and anything but earnest. In addition they continue to spend billions funding the extremist Madrasas, which produce countless terrorists, and MBS has demonstrated that he is a gangster, and a serial killer. They are not an ally. They are the enemy. And creating fake scenarios to encourage a war with Iran would benefit them on many levels, not to mention to soaring price of oil. They are not to be believed. 

[mauGR1]

19 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

They are not an ally. They are the enemy.

 

19 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

They are not to be believed. 

Unfortunately Saudi Arabia is a key US ally, same as Europe.

I know that i'm beating a dead horse, but nowadays ALL politics have no credibility at all.

 

[geoffbezoz]

15 hours ago, Puchaiyank said:

Iran has spent years positioning itself in middle eastern countries so that it could start some mischief with the Saudis...

 

I have no dog in this fight...but I do find it curious that 2 factions of one of the world's great religions...claim moral superiority and would gladly annihilate one another...

My concern is that they don't annihilate themselves quick enough.

[geoffbezoz]

5 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

 

Unfortunately Saudi Arabia is a key US ally, same as Europe.

I know that i'm beating a dead horse, but nowadays ALL politics have no credibility at all.

 

Saudi is only an ally for one reason. Saudi is one fundamental terrorist organization who murder at will, be it in Turkey or the US. And the subservient US not only allows it, they support them.

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, geoffbezoz said:

Saudi is only an ally for one reason. Saudi is one fundamental terrorist organization who murder at will, be it in Turkey or the US. And the subservient US not only allows it, they support them.

Interesting that you say "the subservient US" which is not impossible, but hard to believe.

Perhaps could be also the other way around ?

[geoffbezoz]

Just now, mauGR1 said:

Interesting that you say "the subservient US" which is not impossible, but hard to believe.

Perhaps could be also the other way around ?

or even simply "birds of a feather" ?

[toenail]

This goes way back to Cain and Abel.

One of the differences is that Iranians are not a collection of “wandering desert tribes” that suddenly became wealthy overnight ( within a generation) because of rich oil money. The Iranian people (Persians, not Arabs) have a rich culture that dates back 550 BC. They are well educated and take pride with their ethnic roots. Unfortunately the corrupt clergymen that are in control of the theocratic government do not represent the majority of its citizens. The Saudis are not as sophisticated or well educated. Oil is their big “savior”. And the USA kisses KSA’s behind because of their oil & the Saudi Government purchases millions of dollars of military hardware from the USA, including trainers.
Also, most Iranians are of the Shia muslim faith; whereas most Saudis are of the Sunni Muslim faith. These two religious groups do not always get along.
I have visited both countries and I prefer the Persian people - very “worldly, educated, & polite. ( Do not always believe the propaganda one hears from the USA.)


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[bendejo]

How do you say Reichstag in Arabic?  What about Farsi?

 

 

[ChipButty]

2 hours ago, bendejo said:

How do you say Reichstag in Arabic?  What about Farsi?

 

 

برلمان   barlaman

Farsi پارلمان 

[soalbundy]

5 hours ago, car720 said:

This goes way back to Cain and Abel.

or even earlier.

[soalbundy]

13 hours ago, toenail said:

The USA already fought a war for the Saudis when Iraq invaded Kuwait. (Gulf War) Now young American soldiers will be asked to protect this spoiled nation again. 

entirely unselfishly of course.

[spidermike007]

3 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Interesting that you say "the subservient US" which is not impossible, but hard to believe.

Perhaps could be also the other way around ?

No. Absolutely not. What is the US subservient to? Money. Always has been, and always will be. Therefore, he was correct to refer to the US as subservient to the Saudis. The US bows down to its God. Cash. It is rarely about principal, and it is usually about money. 

[soalbundy]

Just now, spidermike007 said:

No. Absolutely not. What is the US subservient to? Money. Always has been, and always will be. Therefore, he was correct to refer to the US as subservient to the Saudis. The US bows down to its God. Cash. It is rarely about principal, and it is usually about money. 

The last sentence is correct but I think the US could make things far more uncomfortable for the Saudi's than the other way around, the ruling class in Saudi is protected by the US in much the same way that Israel is, the difference being when push comes to shove the Israeli's can look after themselves. The CIA is good at stirring up dissent and it wouldn't take much to remove the kings and princes if they don't follow uncle Sam's wishes. 

[rickudon]

So the Houthis attacked a Saudi oil pipeline. That is not terrorism, Saudi is bombing Houthis in Yemen. That makes the pipeline attack a legitimate act of war.

[from the home of CC]

tainted sources nevertheless insightful and worrying..

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/john-bolton-saudis-white-house-iran-war-u-s-1.5137610

 

especially like the reference of bolton making dick cheney look like mother theresa - lol