Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

War With Iran Is Now Almost Assured.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • War With Iran Is Now Almost Assured.

    Click image for larger version  Name:	Screen%20Shot%202019-06-13%20at%205.04.26%20AM.png?itok=8i4Cxa3T.png Views:	0 Size:	201.3 KB ID:	984741




    Roughly one month after the US accused Iran of attacking Saudi- and UAE-docked oil tankers with naval mines in the Strait of Hormuz, two oil tankers were attacked in the Sea of Oman (not far from where the prior attacks occurred), leaving both ships seriously damaged, Bloomberg reports.

    So far, no casualties have been reported. The attack left one of the ships "ablaze and adrift," according to the Associated Press.

    Sailors from both vessels were being evacuated as the US Navy rushed to assist.

    The Bahrain-based US Fifth Fleet said it received distress signals from the two ships roughly 50 minutes apart. As BBG reports, the incident will almost certainly "inflame" tensions between the US and its Arab allies on one hand, and Iran on the other.
    The development will inflame already-rising political tensions in the region weeks after four vessels, including two Saudi oil tankers, were sabotaged in what the U.S. said was an Iranian attack using naval mines. Tehran denied the charge.

    The Bahrain-based Fifth Fleet said it received two separate distress signals at 6:12 a.m. and about 7:00 a.m. local time. "U.S. Navy ships are in the area and are rendering assistance," Commander Josh Frey, a spokesman, said. Iran said it has rescued 44 sailors.



    Though a suspected aggressor has not yet been officially named, and an investigation into the cause of the incident has only just begun, the notion that Iran will be implicated looks extremely likely, even as Iranian ships helped rescue all 44 sailors who were aboard the two ships. Iran has already denied responsibility for the attack.

    Another tanker, Norwegian-owned and Marshall Islands-flagged Front Altair, sent a distress signal to the UAE port of Fujairah. It had loaded an oil shipment in Abu Dhabi not long before the incident. The ship was reportedly hit with three explosions.

    Officials said it appeared the ships had been attacked with torpedoes. Another report cited officials saying three detonations had been heard.

    The Front Altair was delivering a cargo of naphtha to Taiwan refiner CPC Corp, one company official said. The cargo was supplied by Abu Dhabi’s Adnoc.

    Considering the involvement of the Japan-flagged vessel, the timing of the incident would be ironic. The suspected attacks unfolded as Japanese PM Shinzo Abe met with Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Thursday, the second and final day of his visit, which was intended to de-escalate tensions in the region. There were no immediate details about what they discussed.

    Oil prices are popping higher on the news, as the latest replay of one of history's most famous false-flag naval attacks, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which helped precipitate the Vietnam war, ratchets up tensions in the region. At one point, Brent crude was up as much as 4% to over $62 a barrel.

    At the very least, the US military will use the attack as an excuse to continue its escalation of personnel in one of the most sensitive waterways for the global oil trade. One-third of all oil traded by sea passes through the Strait of Hormuz.

    Worst case, it looks like NSA John Bolton may have just gotten the excuse he needs to justify a full-scale invasion of Iran, which we imagine will soon be confirmed as being behind the attacks.

  • #2
    ...........



    Comment


    • #3
      Yea this can open a can of worms for sure. Even if Iran didn't directly do it I'd bet it directed one of it's proxies to do the dirty work as usuall.. time will tell...

      Comment


      • #4
        Click image for larger version

Name:	VF7eY76.png
Views:	117
Size:	1.16 MB
ID:	984777

        .........

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by lipripper View Post
          Yea this can open a can of worms for sure. Even if Iran didn't directly do it I'd bet it directed one of it's proxies to do the dirty work as usuall.. time will tell...
          or the Saudis did it to kick off a war with their worst enemy...

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Bouncer View Post

            or the Saudis did it to kick off a war with their worst enemy...
            Which means we did it:D

            Comment


            • #7
              We should have turned them to glass years ago. You remove cancer, you don't let it grow.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by zillagraybeard View Post
                We should have turned them to glass years ago. You remove cancer, you don't let it grow.
                Iran has a lot of really good people. It's a great culture in many ways. But just like us they have a terrible government and some of the population are extremist nuts.

                Comment


                • #9
                  A couple years ago didn't Trump make a comment about how a war boosts chances of reelection?

                  Sent from my SM-G930R4 using Tapatalk

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by AvidFisherman View Post
                    A couple years ago didn't Trump make a comment about how a war boosts chances of reelection?

                    Sent from my SM-G930R4 using Tapatalk
                    it's true throughout history. people get emotional and patriotic. the herd tends to forget the domestic issues and focus on the war.

                    scary thing is. the worse the domestic issues the worse the war has to be to distract people. i fear what's coming to be honest.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Japanese Tanker Owner Denies Ship Hit By Mine, Says Crew Saw "Flying Objects" Before Attack

                      For a moment on Thursday, it appeared that the US Navy had produced the 'smoking gun' to which Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had alluded during his statement from earlier in the day: CENTCOM footage which the Navy said purported to show Iran's IRGC 'caught in the act' of trying to remove an unexploded mine from the Kokuka Courageous, one of the two tankers damaged in Thursday's attacks.

                      CENTCOM said the video it released showed the IRGC removing an unexploded limpet mine from the side of one of the tankers, suggesting Tehran had sought to remove evidence from the scene.

                      After the video's release, Iran continued to deny any involvement in the attacks. And perhaps now we know why.

                      In comments that cast the entire narrative promulgated by the US in doubt, Yutaka Katada, the president of Kokuka Sangyo, the owner and operator of the Kokuka Courageous, said Friday that he doesn't completely believe Washington's version of events.

                      Instead, he said the vessel wasn't damaged by a mine, but by some kind of projectile, like, say, a torpedo. He called reports of a mine attack "false." One reason is because a mine doesn't damage a ship above sea level, like what was seen with the Courageous.

                      "A mine doesn’t damage a ship above sea level," said Yutaka Katada, president of Kokuka Sangyo, the owner and operator of the vessel. "We aren’t sure exactly what hit, but it was something flying towards the ship," he said.

                      Another is because of a suspicious sighting by some of the crew, according to Bloomberg.

                      According to the CEO, sailors on board the Courageous saw "flying objects" just before the ship was hit, suggesting the vessel wasn't damaged by mines, but by objects that could have been fired from a distance.

                      Katada’s comments contradict Washington's allegations of a mine attack, though the CEO did mention that his crew had spotted an Iranian Navy ship nearby around the time of the attack, though he didn't say whether it was before or after.

                      The Courageous was carrying 225,000 tons of methanol from Saudi Arabia to Asia and was flying a Panama flag at the time of the attack. Analysts immediately noted the poor timing for Tehran: The attack occurred just as senior Iranian leaders were meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

                      The Courageous suffered two explosions, forcing the crew to evacuate. Fortunately for the company, the ship is unlikely to sink or even lose fuel or goods stored onboard - but it will need to be repaired, Katada said. The US said the ship’s 21-member crew was rescued by a Dutch tug boat and was later taken aboard the USS Bainbridge.

                      Per CBS News, the US may have wanted to show Iran deploying mines because Iran previously used mines against oil tankers in 1987 and 1988 in the "Tanker War," when the US Navy escorted ships through the region.

                      In other news, the US Military said the Navy Destroyer USS Mason is en route to the area in the Sea of Oman where the two tankers were attacked. The military added that it has no interest in engaging in new conflict in the Middle East and that it is ready to defend US interests as well as freedom of navigation.

                      Iran categorically rejected the US unfounded claim regarding tanker attacks, according to Iran's foreign minister and its mission to the UN.

                      Markets appeared to shrug off the news, but the uncertainty will likely create problems for the US as it tries to justify more strict sanctions, or a beefed up military presence to "escort" tankers. However, this didn't stop President Trump on Friday from once again placing the blame squarely on Iran.

                      We imagine the US will continue pushing this line, unless more substantial evidence supporting Katada's claims emerges.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Here is what I mentioned earlier

                        Sent from my SM-G930R4 using Tapatalk

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          There won't be a war.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by chuckz28 View Post
                            There won't be a war.
                            I'd argue the first shots have already been fired. Traditional war? Maybe not. Strategic moves like this and mini proxy wars.. already started. Open your eyes simple fella!

                            Sent from my moto g(7) using Tapatalk

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              No big moves are being made militarily. Media isn't talking much about it. And contrary to popular belief Trump doesn't like war. He's always been opposed to the Iraq war and though his words are strong, his actions always bring diplomacy.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X