Wary of conflict with Iran, Trump takes go-slow approach to attack on Saudi oil

[webfact]

Wary of conflict with Iran, Trump takes go-slow approach to attack on Saudi oil

By Steve Holland and Roberta Rampton

 

U.S. President Donald Trump listens during a meeting with Bahrain Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, U.S., September 16, 2019. REUTERS/Al Drago

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Known for acting on impulse, President Donald Trump has adopted an uncharacteristically go-slow approach over whether to hold Iran responsible for attacks on Saudi oil facilities, showing little enthusiasm for confrontation as he seeks re-election next year.

 

After state-owned Saudi Aramco's plants were struck on Saturday, Trump did not wait long to fire off a tweet that the United States was "locked and loaded" to respond, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo blamed Iran.

 

But four days later, Trump has no timetable for action. Instead, he wants to wait and see the results of investigations into what happened and is sending Pompeo to consult counterparts in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates this week.

 

"There's plenty of time," Trump told reporters on Monday. "You know, there's no rush. We'll all be here a long time. There's no rush."

 

Two U.S. officials told Reuters on Tuesday that Washington believes the attack was launched from Iran, with one of them saying it originated in Iran's southwest.

 

U.S. officials say Trump, who is famously sceptical of his intelligence community, wants to ensure the culprit is positively identified in a way that will pass muster not only with him but with the American people.

 

"In responding to the greatest attack on the global oil markets in history, I think not rushing to respond and ensuring everybody is on the same page is where we should be," said a U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

 

Trump's stance today is in stark contrast to 2017, less than three months into his presidency, when he waited only two days before launching air strikes to punish Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces for a chemical weapons attack.

 

AMERICA FIRST

Trump's caution reflects the "America First" world view that found support with his base in the 2016 presidential campaign and that he is trying to promote again as he seeks a second term in 2020.

 

Pillars of that view are that the Iraq war was a waste of blood and money, that the end of the war in Afghanistan is long overdue, and that Washington should be reimbursed for deployment of U.S. troops abroad, from South Korea to Germany.

 

Jon Alterman, a Middle East expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former State Department official, said Trump also "has grown increasingly cautious as the reality of any military actions increased."

 

"There’s a large constituency the president has that thinks it would be lunacy to go to war against Iran," he said. "There's a large part of his base that thinks the craziest thing we could do is committing ourselves to endless wars in the Middle East."

 

The attacks on Saudi targets have stymied for now what had been an effort to open talks with Iranian leaders to try to get a sense of whether they were ready to strike a deal on their nuclear and ballistic missile programs in response to economic sanctions that have taken a toll on Iran's economy.

 

Trump's willingness to consider easing sanctions on Iran alarmed his national security adviser, John Bolton, when the president raised the idea at a meeting last Monday, a source close to Bolton said. By the next day, Bolton was out.

 

Bolton's departure removed a central anti-Iran voice from the president's inner circle. A well-known foreign policy hawk, Bolton was said to be furious in June when Trump abruptly called off air strikes in response to Iran's shooting down of a U.S. drone.

 

"If Bolton were there, he would be saying it was definitely Iran, and we need to strike right now," said a former senior administration official.

 

Trump rebuked Lindsey Graham, one of his staunchest supporters in the U.S. Senate, after the Republican senator said in a tweet on Tuesday that Iran had seen Trump's response to the drone downing as a sign of weakness.

 

"No Lindsey, it was a sign of strength that some people just don’t understand!" Trump said on Twitter.

 

In Venezuela, despite repeated vows that all options were on the table, Trump also resisted Bolton’s suggestions for a stronger focus on military planning in the country, where a U.S.-led campaign of sanctions and diplomatic pressure has failed to push socialist president Nicolas Maduro from power.

 

Barring a major escalation, future U.S. measures are expected to continue to stop short of military action due to a lack of support from U.S. voters but also because of opposition from allies in Latin America.

 

"We have to be realistic," a Venezuela opposition source said. "Trump will not be sending in the Marines to rescue us."

 

(Additional reporting by Jeff Mason; Editing by Mary Milliken and Sonya Hepinstall)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-09-18

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[OneMoreFarang]

Imagine Trump would have some knowledge about the world.

Imagine he would have any capable advisors.

And imagine he would listen and learn.

 

But the only thing he seems to do is listen to fox "news" and shoot from the hip. And then he is somehow surprised that things don't work out the way he imagines.

[Tug]

He would love to attack Iran but there is an election coming up a fine predicament you have got us into all utterly unessary he is embarrassing 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Imagine Trump would have some knowledge about the world.

Imagine he would have any capable advisors.

And imagine he would listen and learn.

 

But the only thing he seems to do is listen to fox "news" and shoot from the hip. And then he is somehow surprised that things don't work out the way he imagines.

 

In short, imagine if he was someone else?

[Becker]

Apparently Trump is waiting for orders from MbS.

Trump on Twitter:

"Saudi Arabia oil supply was attacked. There is reason to believe that we know the culprit, are locked and loaded depending on verification, but are waiting to hear from the Kingdom as to who they believe was the cause of this attack, and under what terms we would proceed!"

 

Reactions:

"“Trump awaits instructions from his Saudi masters. Having our country act as Saudi Arabia's bitch is not ‘America First,’”

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii

 

Congress is the body empowered to “commence war.” “We don’t take orders from foreign powers,"

Michigan Rep. Justin Amash

 

Trump's deference to Saudi Arabia infuriates much of D.C.

Edited September 18, 2019 by Becker

[Boon Mee]

Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, eh? 

[quandow]

Can't have it both ways, buddy:

[bristolboy]

6 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, eh? 

He's got no one to blame for this predicament except himself. That is to say, no one to blame honestly.

[zydeco]

44 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, eh? 

Comes with the job, doesn't it? 

[bristolboy]

13 minutes ago, zydeco said:

Comes with the job, doesn't it? 

Sometimes it's unavoidable. But this is a mess of Trump's own making.

[Sujo]

And to think he wont act on his own intelligence agencies. Hes waiting for SA to tell him.

 

Just how would SA saying anything make it easier for his voters to believe?

 

It doesnt. Tho his followers just agree with everything he says. Then when he reverses course they agree with that also.

 

The exorcist head spinning is impressive.

[CaptRon2]

4 hours ago, Tug said:

He would love to attack Iran but there is an election coming up a fine predicament you have got us into all utterly unessary he is embarrassing 

“He would love to attack” please share with us the reference where you were provided this insider information, or is this just Mr Tug spreading lies, and misinformation? You do have a reference to back up your statement, right?

i would not be surprised if there is some retaliatory action but I am curious to know how Mr Tug knows President Trump would “love”to attack Iran, reference supporting your statement please, or better still, just stop making false statements that would be a nice change.

[Jack Mountain]

Maybe they can ask the Orb for advice ...

 

[sfokevin]

Locked & Loaded... Just like Tariff Man... 

Edited September 18, 2019 by sfokevin

[Russell17au]

The problem is that Saudi Arabia has been in conflict with Yemen for some time know and no one is sure if this attack was carried out by Yemen or Iran and if he attacks Iran blaming them and it turns out that it was Yemen that did the attack then both Trump and the United States would be the laughing stock of the world and would lose what is left of the credibility that is left now. For the United States to attack any country that is not guilty of anything would be the end of Trump and the United States because no country could ever trust the United States again.

[Thaidream]

Trump's nature is to attack when attacked- whether it is personal or from a country.  In addition, there are neo cons in his camp that still remember when during the Iranian Revolution- the US Embassy was invaded and diplomats help hostage. In addition, Iran has worked with  certain elements in Iraq suppkying  IADs and other instruments of death that have killed US military.

 

Trump has no love for the Iranians and could care less about the Saudis. However- Trump loves Trump and he knows going to war will not get him re- elected as the price of oil would jump drastically pushing America and the World into recession.

 

IMO- he will offer the Saudis more expensive military equipment and surveillance plus send more American military to Saudi- of course- giving the Saudis a bill in the tens of billions for the 'assistance'.  He might even authorize some joint American Saudi strikes on Yemen and  get the Israelis to drop a few bombs on Iran.

 

Trump wants that meeting with Rohani- the Iranian Presient- so he can appear as the level headed statesman and brag to his base how he avoided war; forced the Iranians to deal.

 

The truth is that all of it is just a game to Trump- who cares only about himself and the 1 percenters who donate millions to his re-election campaign/

 

 

[ThaiFelix]

14 minutes ago, Russell17au said:

The problem is that Saudi Arabia has been in conflict with Yemen for some time know and no one is sure if this attack was carried out by Yemen or Iran and if he attacks Iran blaming them and it turns out that it was Yemen that did the attack then both Trump and the United States would be the laughing stock of the world and would lose what is left of the credibility that is left now. For the United States to attack any country that is not guilty of anything would be the end of Trump and the United States because no country could ever trust the United States again.

Nobody trusts them now!

[riclag]

22 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

Trump's nature is to attack when attacked- whether it is personal or from a country.  In addition, there are neo cons in his camp that still remember when during the Iranian Revolution- the US Embassy was invaded and diplomats help hostage. In addition, Iran has worked with  certain elements in Iraq suppkying  IADs and other instruments of death that have killed US military.

 

Trump has no love for the Iranians and could care less about the Saudis. However- Trump loves Trump and he knows going to war will not get him re- elected as the price of oil would jump drastically pushing America and the World into recession.

 

IMO- he will offer the Saudis more expensive military equipment and surveillance plus send more American military to Saudi- of course- giving the Saudis a bill in the tens of billions for the 'assistance'.  He might even authorize some joint American Saudi strikes on Yemen and  get the Israelis to drop a few bombs on Iran.

 

Trump wants that meeting with Rohani- the Iranian Presient- so he can appear as the level headed statesman and brag to his base how he avoided war; forced the Iranians to deal.

 

The truth is that all of it is just a game to Trump- who cares only about himself and the 1 percenters who donate millions to his re-election campaign/

 

 

"The truth is that all of it is just a game to Trump- who cares only about himself and the 1 percenters who donate millions to his re-election campaign/"

 

 These aren't games!  Millions of Americans like  someone watching  our back to keep us safe ! Millions of Americans feel threaten by Iran, not Mr. Trump 

Edited September 18, 2019 by riclag

[quandow]

You DO get that a U.S. president receiving orders from a Saudi Prince of who to attack and how is totally messed up?!?

[newatthis]

31 minutes ago, riclag said:

Millions of Americans feel threaten by Iran, not Mr. Trump 

Americans are more likely to be killed by a fellow American than an Iranian.

[Tug]

2 hours ago, CaptRon2 said:

“He would love to attack” please share with us the reference where you were provided this insider information, or is this just Mr Tug spreading lies, and misinformation? You do have a reference to back up your statement, right?

i would not be surprised if there is some retaliatory action but I am curious to know how Mr Tug knows President Trump would “love”to attack Iran, reference supporting your statement please, or better still, just stop making false statements that would be a nice change.

Well skipper were to start?his Muslim ban is a start unless they’re Saudis you know they have money perhaps his statement of waiting for directions before attacking?perhaps his betrayal of the agreement and directly by his and his actions alone causing this mess naaa you and I know he would love to bomb the deleted out of them but we Americans won’t stand for it hurts his chances for re election nope he would love to attack

[scorecard]

8 hours ago, Tug said:

He would love to attack Iran but there is an election coming up a fine predicament you have got us into all utterly unessary he is embarrassing 

 Plus I suspect there's another point; he used big, brave and tough talk with the Nth Korean president thinking he could intimidate Nth korea, it didn't work, not at all, in fact we've now seen 3 meetings all of which seem to imply that Mr. Un stands well above trump.

 

And now in the last couple of days trump has quickly several times mentioned that he doesn't want war with Iran, seems to me that he's now totally backed away from his tough talk approach because it didn't work and nobody actually takes his tough talk seriously.

 

He's painted himself into a corner.

 

Well at least bolton has gone.

 

 

 

Edited September 18, 2019 by scorecard

[Sujo]

US supplies weapons to SA. So why then fight their battle.

[Bluespunk]

9 hours ago, webfact said:

There’s a large constituency the president has that thinks it would be lunacy to go to war against Iran," he said. "There's a large part of his base that thinks the craziest thing we could do is committing ourselves to endless wars in the Middle East."

 

Is there anyone, regardless of political philosophy, who thinks endless wars are a good idea?

[CaptRon2]

1 hour ago, Tug said:

Well skipper were to start?his Muslim ban is a start unless they’re Saudis you know they have money perhaps his statement of waiting for directions before attacking?perhaps his betrayal of the agreement and directly by his and his actions alone causing this mess naaa you and I know he would love to bomb the deleted out of them but we Americans won’t stand for it hurts his chances for re election nope he would love to attack

And you just continue to rant and still not produce one credible reference. So please enlighten us, where or who is your source that President Trump would love to attack Iran? You have made a statement, you apparently have no supporting evidence that he would love to attack, and yet you continue to spread lies about something you have no knowledge about even after you have been called on it, in my opinion it is actions such as this that are causing many of the problems in the country, so how it about if you make a statement you have a reference to back it up, the facts please, just the facts, your imagination contributes nothing to the discussion.

Nice job formatting your reply, in my opinion it is a step in the right direction

[Bluespunk]

9 hours ago, webfact said:

Trump's willingness to consider easing sanctions on Iran alarmed his national security adviser, John Bolton, when the president raised the idea at a meeting last Monday, a source close to Bolton said. By the next day, Bolton was out.

 

Bolton's departure removed a central anti-Iran voice from the president's inner circle. A well-known foreign policy hawk, Bolton was said to be furious in June when Trump abruptly called off air strikes in response to Iran's shooting down of a U.S. drone.

 

"If Bolton were there, he would be saying it was definitely Iran, and we need to strike right now," said a former senior administration official.

OK, regarding my previous post, let's ignore the crazies that are out there whose closed mindset and blind indifference to the consequences of violent, bloody solutions, overcome common sense

Edited September 18, 2019 by Bluespunk

[observer90210]

And what if the Saudis (or other involved partners) orchestrated the "attack" themselves ?...just to slow down production and drasticaly hike prices ? 

 

Sherlock Holmes would have said,  see to whom the crime benefits....

[bristolboy]

Just now, observer90210 said:

And what if the Saudis (or other involved partners) orchestrated the "attack" themselves ?...just to slow down production and drasticaly hike prices ? 

 

Sherlock Holmes would have said,  see to whom the crime benefits....

Right. MbS wants to be seen as someone who can't defend his own country.

[Morch]

9 minutes ago, observer90210 said:

And what if the Saudis (or other involved partners) orchestrated the "attack" themselves ?...just to slow down production and drasticaly hike prices ? 

 

Sherlock Holmes would have said,  see to whom the crime benefits....

 

I don't think they are into intentionally orchestrating attacks making them look incompetent. 

Even if the only measure of "who benefits" was gain from increased oil prices, it would apply to their neighbors across the Gulf as well.

[mauGR1]

39 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Is there anyone, regardless of political philosophy, who thinks endless wars are a good idea?

Weapons producers ?