US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said at a news conference in Washington: "It is the assessment of the United States that the Islamic Republic of Iran is responsible for the attacks.Right. My dim recollection of Pompeo is that, when he was a congressman, he was part of the Benghazi Conspiracy Caucus and that he was one of the "Bomb Iran" wingnuts.
"This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping, and the fact that no proxy group operating in the area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication."
So, do I trust Pompeo? Nope. We've been down this road before, when chickenhawks in the Bush-II Aministration cherry-picked and/or flat-out lied about intelligence to gin up their Extra Special Iraq War, a way which destabilized the region and led to the birth of ISIS.
And then there is this:
The UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said his country's "starting point" was to "believe our US allies".Slow learners, the Brits.
So, was Iran behind these attacks? I don't know. But "who else coulda done it" isn't evidence.
UPDATE: One might want to read CDR Sal's take on this.
UPDATE II: Something that didn't occur to me until later is this-- look at the blast points on those tankers. If you are going to try and sink a ship, you would attach a limpet mine below the waterline, not several feet above it. Those blasts were also set to occur in places of the ship where it would be highly unlikely that any sailor would be present. Keep in mind that those ships have a total crew of maybe 25 hands, from the captain down to the cook.
We've probably already ceded the moral high ground to Iran. Imagine that.
ReplyDeleteHunt's quote is amazing. I mean, when have the Americans been wrong in their assessments? Wwow!
ReplyDeleteI read both Cdr and Stonekettle’s take on this, and found they match mine. There seems very little upside for Iran on this matter, and timing is very suspicious. The “video” is of poor enough, and unclear enough, quality to answer nothing and prove nothing. Recent history on the use of photos and videos in a misleading manner by US Administrations does not encourage confidence.
ReplyDeleteDoes this mean that I am suggesting the US did this as a false flag, no. However, I am willing to consider the possibility of such, given the actions of this Administration. Does this mean I am ruling out Iran, no. I certainly believe the Revolutionary Guards, or some other element, could be involved without Iranian Government involvement. Israel, hell yes it’s possible...Russia, yep...China, sure...Saudi Arabia, uh huh...Qatar, why not...the list continues, and certainly includes non-Governmental groups.
Why the jump to high alert by the US is the question here? Why the sabre rattling, what’s the end game here for the US? Neither ship is US, neither cargo was bound for the US, no US personnel are involved, etc. Exactly how did these two “attacks” occur, and are they linked to the four previous attacks? Were these two ships recently berthed together, and can the same be said for any of the other four? All these questions unanswered, but we’re still pointing our finger and flinging poo like an annoyed monkey, why?
but we’re still pointing our finger and flinging poo like an annoyed monkey, why?
ReplyDeleteBolton and Pompeo are both regime-change neocons. Bolton, in paarticular, has never seen a foreign policy issue that couldn't be solved by starting a war.
Yea, it was a bit rhetorical, but, yea. Now the Japanese owners are denying seeing a mine on the hull and reporting a strike by a projectile.
ReplyDeleteOn that line of thought, who the fuck attaches a limpet mine above the waterline? Perhaps someone that wants it’s seen/found...or someone that wants smoke and fire by no sunk ship to block the Straits?
Looked at it some more...the four ships hit before each had damage consistent with a small explosive placed below the waterline. Both these ships show damage above the waterline...which is interesting, as Comrade notes. Looking at the US picture with the small hole from an explosive and a “reported” unexploded limpet mine attached to the hull, there is paint discoloration in the “unexploded mine” area, suggesting recent painting and perhaps repairs. Is it out of the question that what we see there is related to a temporary repair? The shape of the “limpet mine” in the picture is unusual, to the extent that it can be made out, which might encourage the Iranian involvement. I would love to know what ship compartments were behind the locations of the “mines”, cause Comrade has an interesting point about was someone trying to minimize damage?
ReplyDeleteTook a longer look at the pictures offered and other file photos of Kokuka Courageous and Front Altair. In both cases an explosion/unexploded mine was located approximately amidships, in the middle of the cargo tanks, and the other location was the rear of the cargo tanks and the front of the ships quarters. The angle of the offered USN picture of Kokuka Courageous that suggests the hole is under the superstructure appears misleading when you compare the location of hull markings in that picture with other side views of the vessel.
ReplyDeleteNow, the similarity of the two points argues against the projective theory, as hitting two ships in such a similar location is unlikely, unless you had a capable drone/operator team and some form of shaped-charge warhead.
I had heard that someone had seen suspected drone activity near the ships just before the explosions. Whether or not that is true, I don't know, but I would not rule anything out at this early stage. Of course, we might never learn the true bad actor who did these things.
ReplyDelete