US piling pressure on Iran
Fog of war hangs over tanker attacks
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/14/politics/us-iran-tankers-diplomacy-warfare-pompeo/index.html
2019-06-14 06:50:00Z
52780314199816
As the plumes rise from a brazen attack in the Gulf of Oman, oil brokers and diplomats are panicking about another lurch toward confrontation In the Middle East.
What happened is fairly clear -- two tankers were struck as they sailed through this busy and strategic shipping lane -- but why it happened and who did it is a lot less easy to explain, not least because it doesn't appear to benefit any of the protagonists in the region.
Inevitably, similarities have been drawn between Thursday's attacks and events a month ago, when four ships were targeted near the Emirati port of Furajah. For that, officials in Washington and beyond pointed the finger at Iran.
Thursday's incident is significantly more blatant, but the same officials will doubtless blame Tehran again. If and when that happens, we should remember US National Security Advisor John Bolton promised to present evidence to the UN Security Council backing up those previous claims, but has yet to do so.
Who stands to gain?
Iran doesn't appear to have a lot to gain. Say what you like about Tehran's malicious intent, these incidents heighten the global drumbeat for greater isolation and boosts those who seek to apply military pressure on Iran. Its economy is in a bad condition. Before President Donald Trump pulled the US out of the JCPOA (colloquially known as the Iran nuclear deal), Tehran was at its peak of regional influence. With diminished economic resources, its potency is likely to wane.
The incidents also came in the middle of a visit to Tehran by Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, apparently trying to mediate over the nuclear deal (although Tokyo says he's not an envoy for Washington). The apparent attacks eclipsed the Abe visit, an unexpected bit of outreach to Iran by someone Trump calls a friend.
You could make a case for Iranian hardliners staging such an attack to derail peace efforts. But Iran's hardliners -- particularly the Revolutionary Guard -- are normally a little smarter than to bomb international shipping lanes during a crucial diplomatic meeting. Iran's chief moderate, Foreign Minister Javid Zarif, was right to point out that "suspicious doesn't begin to describe what likely transpired this morning." When one party is so easily blamed, it is likely blameless, or unfathomably stupid.
What else? Reuters has reported that Tehran has been scaling up its remaining petrochemical exports ahead of tightening sanctions. Could it be looking to boost the price of oil? Maybe. But at the same time, the shipping of that same oil is going to be disrupted, so they would likely lose out all the same. It is hard to imagine an Iranian hardliner smart enough to pull this sort of apparent attack off, without also realizing they would get immediately collared.
The apparent attack on two tankers in the Gulf of Oman on Thursday represents a dramatic escalation in regional and international tensions. Coming just one month and one day after an attack on four other oil tankers in the same area, oil prices have spiked upward in fear of what might happen next.
What's going on here? Blame Iran.
The United Arab Emirates and Saudis might want a United States showdown with Iran but they would not risk jeopardizing the U.S. relationship by conducting a false flag attack. Moreover, the damage to the two tankers in this latest incident is suggestive of a torpedo attack: video shows at least one of the tankers on fire with waterline damage amidships. Iran has an array of means for such an attack, including attack submarines of various sizes, disguised fishing and passenger boats, and military fast boats.
Regardless, this attack fits comfortably with the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps penchant for thinly deniable action. Suffering deep financial losses due to escalating U.S. sanctions, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps wants to pressure the international community into restraining the Trump administration's maximum pressure strategy. Iran will hope that this attack is sufficiently calibrated to avoid clear evidence of its culpability and thus avoid U.S. retaliation. In that, it is designed as a halfway measure between doing nothing and inviting U.S. retaliation by overtly attempting to shut down the Strait of Hormuz.
But Iran's escalation should not be seen solely through the prism of this attack. Supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei has made veiled but apparent threats of Iranian resistance to the Trump administration's pressure. And an Iranian-enabled missile attack on Saudi Arabia this week illustrates that the Revolutionary Guards is escalating. This sits squarely within Iran's theocratic penchant for resistance against great odds (look up the Battle of Karbala).
The question is how the U.S. and its allies should respond.
The measure of this aggression will require some kind of significant response. Iran is now actively disrupting international oil markets and free passage of an arterial trade route. That cannot stand. But rightly neither is there much appetite in the U.S. or the region for a war.
I suspect what we will now see is a significantly increased naval presence by the U.S. and its allies to protect transit routes. Iranian forces and fishing vessels (due to the threat of disguised attacks) will likely be warned to keep distance from other vessels or face being sunk. We should expect them to test that warning, and for allied vessels to fire on them in response. Hopefully they will get the message and go back to port.
In terms of naval air-power, the U.S. currently has only an amphibious ready group in the area, so expect one of the carriers now in the Atlantic to be redeployed back to the Gulf.
Dubai, United Arab Emirates -- Two tankers were attacked Thursday near the strategic Strait of Hormuz, leaving one ablaze and adrift as sailors were evacuated from both. It was the second time in a month that tankers have been seriously damaged in the region, and again U.S. officials were quick to point the finger of blame at Iran.
A U.S. defense official told CBS News senior national security correspondent David Martin it was "highly likely Iran caused these attacks" on Thursday. The official dismissed an Iranian claim to have rescued the crews of both vessels in the Gulf of Oman as "patently false." He said the USS Bainbridge picked up 21 crew members.
Iran claimed it dispatched search teams that rescued 44 sailors from the two vessels.
The official told Martin he had seen reports that members of one of the tanker crews believed they were hit by a torpedo or a mine, but that he couldn't confirm those reports.
A U.S. official told Martin that American authorities expected to recover sufficient debris from the attacks to be able to trace them back to their source. The official said any retaliation from the U.S. would depend on the evidence found linking the attcks to Iran, and on the attitudes of other Gulf countries. After four tankers were attacked last month Saudi Arabia had no appetite for retaliation. That has changed.
The Lincoln was making a port call in Oman. It has gotten underway. Don't know if it was scheduled to get underway or did so in response to attacks.
U.S. officials pushing back against Iranian claims to have rescued crew members. According to U.S. officials, the crewmen Iran "rescued" were given no choice about boarding an Iranian vessel. At last report, they were still in Iranian hands, so fine line between rescued and detained.
The attacks come amid heightened tension between Washington and Tehran, and the timing is senstitive; it transpired just as the Japanese leader was visiting Iran to try and rekindle diplomacy to ease the standoff. Japan's Trade Ministry said the two vessels struck on Thursday were carrying "Japan-related cargo."
Iran's foreign minister described the attacks as beyond suspicious, given the timing with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe meeing in Tehran with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
"Suspicious doesn't begin to describe what likely transpired this morning," Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said in a tweet. He didn't elaborate.
On Wednesday, after talks with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, Abe had warned that an "accidental conflict" could be sparked amid the heightened U.S.-Iran tensions, which he said must be avoided. His message came just hours after Yemen's Iranian-backed Houthi rebels attacked a Saudi airport, striking the arrivals hall before dawn and wounding 26 people Wednesday.
Tensions have escalated in the Mideast as Iran appears poised to break the 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, an accord the Trump administration first unilaterally backed out of last year.
Khamenei, meanwhile, reiterated his regime's long-standing insistence that it does not seek to obtain nuclear weapons, but he added that "America could not do anything" to stop Iran if it did.
The latest incidents come after the U.S. alleged that Iran used mines to attack four oil tankers off the nearby Emirati port of Fujairah last month. Iran has denied involvement, but it comes as Iranian-backed rebels in Yemen also have launched missile and drone attacks on Saudi Arabia.
Benchmark Brent crude spiked at one point by as much 4% in trading after the reported attack to over $62 a barrel, highlighting how crucial the Strait of Hormuz is to global energy supplies. A third of all oil traded by sea passes through the strait, which is the narrow mouth of the Persian Gulf.
Cmdr. Joshua Frey, a spokesman for the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet, said American ships were assisting the two vessels, which he described as being hit in a "reported attack." He did not say how the ships were attacked or who was suspected of being behind the assault.
The Norwegian shipping firm Frontline confirmed Thursday that one of its tankers, the Front Altair, was in flames after an incident in the Gulf of Oman, according to Reuters. It cited the Norwegian newspaper VG, which quoted a company spokesman. The spokesman said all 23 crew members were taken onto a nearby vessel.
Dryad Global, a maritime intelligence firm, said the Front Altair was "on fire and adrift."
Reuters also quoted a senior official of Taiwanese state oil refiner CPC Corp as saying the Front Altair, a tanker chartered by CPC to carry fuel from the Middle East, was apparently hit by a torpedo.
Front Altair had been loaded at a port in the Gulf with naptha, a petroleum product, and was on its way to the Far East.
Separately, a spokesman for BSM Ship Management told Reuters one of the vessels it manages, the Kokuka Courageous, was damaged in "a security incident" in the Gulf of Oman on Thursday. He said all 21 crew members abandoned ship and were quickly rescued, adding that the incident damaged the ship's starboard hull.
"The Kokuka Courageous remains in the area and is not in any danger of sinking. The cargo of methanol is intact," Reuters quoted the spokesman as saying.
Reuters reported that a shipping broker said there was an explosion "suspected from an outside attack" on the Kokuka Courageous – and it may have involved a magnetic mine. Japanese shipping firm Kokuka Sangyo, the vessel's owner, said it was struck twice in three hours, Reuters added.
The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations, a maritime safety group run by the British navy, first put out the alert early Thursday, giving coordinates for the incident some 25 miles off the Iranian coastline.
Thursday's suspected attacks on two tankers in the Gulf of Oman come a month after four commercial ships were hit in the same waterway, heightening tensions in a region already on edge.
But these reported attacks appear to be even more aggressive. Here's the difference between the two incidents.
May 12 incident
In the incident on May 12, four ships were at anchor in the UAE port of Fujairah, a few kilometers from the coast, when they were apparently hit by mines or improvised explosive devices likely attached to their hulls overnight. The attacks caused no injuries and no evacuation. They were, essentially, pin-prick strikes, a subtle message.
The US and Saudi Arabia suspect Iran was behind those attacks -- though no evidence of its involvement has been presented. Tehran denied any involvement, and precisely who carried out the attack is still under investigation.
Today's incident
The two tankers involved in today's suspected attacks were some 70 kilometers from the UAE, closer to the Iranian coast.
One of them was hit above the water line by what witnesses described as “some sort of shell," according to an official from the firm that owns the boat. The other ship caught on fire following an explosion. The crews of both boats were evacuated.
There has been no assigning of blame thus far today, but the volume has been turned up.
Thursday's suspected attacks on two tankers in the Gulf of Oman come a month after four commercial ships were hit in the same waterway, heightening tensions in a region already on edge.
But these reported attacks appear to be even more aggressive. Here's the difference between the two incidents.
May 12 incident
In the incident on May 12, four ships were at anchor in the UAE port of Fujairah, a few kilometers from the coast, when they were apparently hit by mines or improvised explosive devices likely attached to their hulls overnight. The attacks caused no injuries and no evacuation. They were, essentially, pin-prick strikes, a subtle message.
The US and Saudi Arabia suspect Iran was behind those attacks -- though no evidence of its involvement has been presented. Tehran denied any involvement, and precisely who carried out the attack is still under investigation.
Today's incident
The two tankers involved in today's suspected attacks were some 70 kilometers from the UAE, closer to the Iranian coast.
One of them was hit above the water line by what witnesses described as “some sort of shell," according to an official from the firm that owns the boat. The other ship caught on fire following an explosion. The crews of both boats were evacuated.
There has been no assigning of blame thus far today, but the volume has been turned up.