Trump sees many options short of war with Iran after attacks on Saudis

[webfact]

Trump sees many options short of war with Iran after attacks on Saudis

By Jeff Mason and Stephen Kalin

 

Remains of the missiles which Saudi government says were used to attack an Aramco oil facility, are displayed during a news conference in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia September 18, 2019. REUTERS/Hamad I Mohammed

 

LOS ANGELES/JEDDAH (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Wednesday there were many options short of war with Iran after U.S. ally Saudi Arabia displayed remnants of drones and missiles it said were used in a crippling attack on its oil sites that was "unquestionably sponsored" by Tehran.

 

"There are many options. There's the ultimate option and there are options that are a lot less than that. And we'll see," Trump told reporters in Los Angeles. "I'm saying the ultimate option meaning go in -- war."

 

The president struck a cautious note as his Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, during a visit to Saudi Arabia, described the attacks as "an act of war" on the kingdom, the world's largest oil exporter.

 

Trump said on Twitter that he had ordered the U.S. Treasury to "substantially increase sanctions" on Iran, which denies carrying out the attacks, and told reporters the unspecified, punitive economic measures would be unveiled within 48 hours.

 

The Saudi Arabian military unveiled wreckage it says represents the proof of Iranian involvement in last weekend's attack on oil infrastructure. Meanwhile, President Trump vows new sanctions. Matthew Larotonda reports.

 

Trump's tweet followed repeated U.S. assertions that the Islamic Republic was behind Saturday's attacks and came hours after Saudi Arabia said the strike was a "test of global will".

 

Iran again denied involvement in the Sept. 14 raids, which hit the world's biggest crude oil processing facility and initially knocked out half of Saudi output. Saudi Arabia is the world's leading oil exporter.

 

Responsibility was claimed by Yemen's Iran-aligned Houthi group, which on Wednesday gave more details of the raid, saying it was launched from three sites in Yemen.

 

In a remark that may further strain a tense political atmosphere in the Gulf, the Houthis said they had listed dozens of sites in the United Arab Emirates, Riyadh's top Arab ally, as possible targets for attacks.

 

ATTACKS 'UNQUESTIONABLY SPONSORED BY IRAN'

To bolster its assertion that Iran was responsible, Saudi Arabia showed drone and missile debris it said amounted to undeniable evidence of Iranian aggression.

 

A total of 25 drones and missiles were used in the attacks sponsored by Iran but not launched from Yemen, Defence Ministry spokesman Colonel Turki al-Malki told a news conference."The attack was launched from the north and unquestionably sponsored by Iran," he said, adding Iranian Delta Wing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) were used in addition to cruise missiles.

 

An investigation into the origin of the attacks was still under way and the result will be announced later, he said.

 

The attack exposed gaps in Saudi air defences despite billions spent on Western military hardware.

 

Proof of Iranian responsibility, and evidence that the attack was launched from Iranian territory, could pressure Riyadh and Washington into a response. Both nations, however, were stressing the need for caution.

 

Trump has previously said he does not want war and is coordinating with Gulf and European states.

 

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia's de facto ruler, said the strike was a "real test of the global will" to confront subversion of the international order.

 

His envoy to London, Prince Khalid bin Bander, told the BBC the attack was "almost certainly" Iranian-backed: "We're trying not to react too quickly because the last thing we need is more conflict in the region."

 

The Islamic Republic dismissed the allegations.

 

"They want to impose maximum ... pressure on Iran through slander," Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said.

 

"We don't want conflict in the region ... Who started the conflict?" he added, blaming Washington and its Gulf allies for the war in Yemen.

 

Yemen's Houthi movement, battling a Western-backed, Saudi-led coalition for more than four years, said it used drones to assault state oil company Aramco's sites. U.S. officials, however, have said the attack was not launched by the Houthis.

 

The raid exposed the vulnerability of Saudi Arabia's oil infrastructure and threw down a gauntlet to the United States, which wants to curb Iranian influence in the region.

 

"The attack is like Sept. 11th for Saudi Arabia. It is a game changer," said one Saudi security analyst.

 

"AN ACT OF WAR"

Visiting Jeddah, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the attacks would be a major focus of next week's annual U.N. General Assembly meeting and suggested Saudi Arabia could make its case there.

 

"It was an act of war against them directly, and I'm confident they will do that," he told reporters before meeting the Saudi crown prince, later tweeting that the United States supports Saudi Arabia's right to defend itself.

 

The two men "agreed that the Iranian regime must be held accountable for its continued aggressive, reckless, and threatening behaviour," the U.S. State Department said in a statement after their talks.

 

U.N. officials monitoring sanctions on Iran and Yemen were also heading to Saudi Arabia to investigate. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said a major confrontation in the Gulf would have "devastating consequences" for the region and globally.

 

France, which is trying to salvage an international nuclear deal with Iran that Washington quit last year, said it wanted to establish the facts before reacting.

 

A U.S. official told Reuters on Tuesday the strikes originated in southwestern Iran. Three officials said they involved cruise missiles and drones, indicating more complexity and sophistication than initially thought.

 

Saudi Arabia's finance minister told Reuters the attack had no impact on revenues and Aramco was continuing to supply markets without interruption.

U.S. efforts to bring about a U.N. Security Council response looked unlikely to succeed as Russia and China have veto powers and were expected to shield Iran.

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has offered to sell defence systems to Riyadh, called for a "thorough and impartial" probe during a phone call with Prince Mohammed.

 

IRAN-U.S. CONFLICT

The 2015 nuclear deal ushered in a brief detente in long hostile relations between Iran and the United States. But antagonism returned when Trump pulled out of the pact, reached before he took office, and reimposed sanctions, severely damaging the Iranian economy. Iran has ruled out talks with Washington unless it returns to the pact.

 

Trump said he is not looking to meet Rouhani at the United Nations next week. Rouhani and his foreign minister may not attend the annual General Assembly at all unless U.S. visas are issued in the coming hours, Iranian state media reported.

 

Washington and its Gulf allies want Iran to stop supporting regional proxies, including in Yemen, Iraq and Lebanon, as well as to put more limitations on its nuclear and missile programmes.

 

(Graphic: Strikes on Saudi oil - https://graphics.reuters.com/SAUDI-ARAMCO/0100B29Q1C3/index.html)

 

(Reporting by Jeff Mason in Los Angeles, and Stephen Kalin in Jeddah; Additional reporting by Parisa Hafezi in Dubai, Guy Faulconbridge in London, Michelle Nichols in New York, Rania El Gamal, Davide Barbuscia and Marwa Rashad in Riyadh, Asma Alsharif and Sylvia Westall in Dubai, Alaa Swilam and Hisham El Saba in Cairo, Maria Kiselyova in Moscow; Tim Kelly in Tokyo, John Irish and Sudip Kar-Gupta in Paris, Phil Stewart, Steve Holland and Susan Heavey in Washington; Writing by Ghaida Ghantous, Andrew Cawthorne and Arshad Mohammed; Editing by Howard Goller, Alistair Bell and Lisa Shumaker)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-09-19

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[quandow]

Those who don't learn from the past . . .

[spidermike007]

I am no fan of Trump, but let's hope there are other options besides an attack on Iran. Personally, I do not think they did this. They are simply not that dumb. 

 

The last thing the US and the world needs right now is another war. Anyone who thinks the Iranians will not go to war does not understand their mindset. 

 

Lastly, it is important to remember that although the US has the largest defense budget and the most sophisticated rockets and nuclear stockpiles, it is also worth remembering that they have not won a war since WWII, of any consequence, and got their butts kicked in Korea and Vietnam. And Afghanistan and Iraq did not exactly turn out as planned. So, nothing is a given. It very well could end up being a very protracted conflict costing tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of lives, years of anguish and trillions of dollars. And where would the US be at the end of it all? 

[ThaiFelix]

"The boy that cried wolf" immediately comes to mind.

[Srikcir]

9 hours ago, webfact said:

"The attack is like Sept. 11th for Saudi Arabia. It is a game changer,"

No Saudis were involved in the attack on the Saudi facility - so no, not like Sept. 11th.

Maybe if the U.S. stopped supplying arms to Saudi Arabia to attack Yemen Houthi, Iran will stop supplying arms to the Houthi. Quid pro Quo.

Congress attempted to pass legislation to stop Trump supplying such arms but couldn't get a veto-proof bill from the Republican-controlled Senate.

[Srikcir]

10 hours ago, webfact said:

Both nations, however, were stressing the need for caution.

That's not true for the U.S.

In a January report by Yemen experts, the UN wrote about new, powerful Houthi drones capable of targeting Saudi Arabia.

• "The most distinctive feature of the UAV-X is its significantly increased endurance and range," the report said, adding that it "may have a maximum range of between 1,200 km and 1,500 km, depending on wind conditions. It would give credence to the claims by the Houthis that they have the capability to hit targets such as Riyadh, Abu Dhabi and Dubai."

But what does Pompeo say when asked Wednesday why the Houthis couldn't be responsible for the attack, he made made clear that regardless of who actually it carried out, the US will hold Iran responsible.

• "It doesn't matter,"... "This was an Iranian attack. It's not the case that you can subcontract out the devastation of five percent of the world's global energy supply and think that you can absolve yourself of responsibilities."
• If the Houthis' claim turns out to be true "it doesn't change the fingerprints of the Ayatollah as having put at risk the global energy supply,"

http://lite.cnn.io/en/article/h_a4e517c70e409d53d954c71041aac40a

So Pompeo jumps to

10 hours ago, webfact said:

"It was an act of war against them directly

Yet, Saudi Arabia has not said so.

 

[Lacessit]

Trump as a pacifist is something new.

He initiated the problem with Iran by trashing an agreement on nuclear development, and imposing crippling sanctions on the Iranian economy.

IMHO he's looking to make a deal. That's his shtick. Whether the Iranians want to deal with him is another question.

[Jingthing]

Look his main motivation is to get reelected. If he fails then he's subject to prosecution and prison. He thinks that getting into a war before the election decreases his chances of being reelected as it will be obvious that he's responsible for creating that war by crapping out of the Iran nuclear deal. So he's a dove when he thinks it will save his <deleted>. Nothing about core principles.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Morch]

4 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

I am no fan of Trump, but let's hope there are other options besides an attack on Iran. Personally, I do not think they did this. They are simply not that dumb. 

 

The last thing the US and the world needs right now is another war. Anyone who thinks the Iranians will not go to war does not understand their mindset. 

 

Lastly, it is important to remember that although the US has the largest defense budget and the most sophisticated rockets and nuclear stockpiles, it is also worth remembering that they have not won a war since WWII, of any consequence, and got their butts kicked in Korea and Vietnam. And Afghanistan and Iraq did not exactly turn out as planned. So, nothing is a given. It very well could end up being a very protracted conflict costing tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of lives, years of anguish and trillions of dollars. And where would the US be at the end of it all? 

 

Your admiration and over hyping of Iran's leadership and capabilities are dully noted. You've posted as much, repeatedly, on multiple topics. It still doesn't make your posts factual, informed or objective.

 

The Iranians certainly miscalculate. Like every other government, they sometimes do "dumb" stuff.  They are also quite into testing borders, limits and do not shy away from using force (directly or indirectly).

 

The "not won a war" line is meaningless without discussion of what "winning" implies and what sort of "war" is referred to. As far as I'm aware, there isn't much by way of serious talk involving a full blown boots on the ground invasion of Iran. Doubt even Bolton had that in mind.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, Srikcir said:

No Saudis were involved in the attack on the Saudi facility - so no, not like Sept. 11th.

Maybe if the U.S. stopped supplying arms to Saudi Arabia to attack Yemen Houthi, Iran will stop supplying arms to the Houthi. Quid pro Quo.

Congress attempted to pass legislation to stop Trump supplying such arms but couldn't get a veto-proof bill from the Republican-controlled Senate.

 

"Maybe if the U.S. stopped supplying arms to Saudi Arabia to attack Yemen Houthi, Iran will stop supplying arms to the Houthi. Quid pro Quo."

 

I doubt you seriously believe Iran would have agreed and complied (stressing the latter part) with this. It's not as if they do not have a history of going against UN resolutions on such matters.

[spidermike007]

It is the solemn duty of every citizen of the world, to question US "evidence" against a nation in which it is engaged in a heated battle of rhetoric. Even more so with the Saudis, who cannot be trusted on any level whatsoever, especially now that the serial killing MBS is at the helm. Just look at the countless lies that were told in the build up to the invasion of Iraq, if you need proof of the extreme level of insincerity on the part of the US government. And if they were telling lies under Bush Jr. imagine the nature and extent of the lies now, under Trump?

[usviphotography]

17 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Trump as a pacifist is something new.

He initiated the problem with Iran by trashing an agreement on nuclear development, and imposing crippling sanctions on the Iranian economy.

IMHO he's looking to make a deal. That's his shtick. Whether the Iranians want to deal with him is another question.

 

Has nothing to do with the present conflict. Iran was going to provide material support for the Shia in Yemen no matter what was going on with the unrelated nuclear deal because defending the rights of the Shia minority in the Middle East has always been a core component of Iranian Foreign Policy. And Trump had nothing to do with Saudi Arabia's idiotic decision to invade Yemen. And once the Saudis invaded Yemen, it was only natural Yemen would retaliate. 

 

The analogy Pompeo is looking for here is actually the Battle of Midway, not Pearl Harbor. The Saudis were the ones who launched an unprovoked invasion. This is merely the first serious example of Yemen punching back. 

[Morch]

57 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

It is the solemn duty of every citizen of the world, to question US "evidence" against a nation in which it is engaged in a heated battle of rhetoric. Even more so with the Saudis, who cannot be trusted on any level whatsoever, especially now that the serial killing MBS is at the helm. Just look at the countless lies that were told in the build up to the invasion of Iraq, if you need proof of the extreme level of insincerity on the part of the US government. And if they were telling lies under Bush Jr. imagine the nature and extent of the lies now, under Trump?

 

"It is the solemn duty of every citizen of the world,..." - and some posters call Pompeo pompous.

If "lies" and "serial killing" are an issue, interesting that the Iranians get a free pass.

[Jingthing]

Basically the "trump" Iran policy has failed miserably. I don't see any signs of an adjustment that will improve the situation. 

 

Quote

 

The central mistake of Trump’s Iran policy

 

“The enemy gets a vote.” U.S. military leaders are fond of using that line. Gen. Jim Mattis used it so often that it is sometimes attributed to him. In fact, it is a nugget of wisdom dating back to Sun Tzu, the Chinese military strategist, who counseled that one must “know the enemy.”

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-central-mistake-of-trumps-iran-policy/2019/09/19/fcc9828e-db1b-11e9-bfb1-849887369476_story.html

[emptypockets]

Let the middle east sort out their own problems. Pull all foreign troops and monetary aid out. Wait 5 years or so and re-establish relationships with whomever survives.

The whole area is a festering cess pit of hatred and has been for thousands of years.

Edited September 20, 2019 by emptypockets