[rockdoc123]

Now there is direct physical evidence of Iran's involvement in the attack on KSA.

the Saudis already stated on Monday that the parts found were of Iranian source so there is nothing new here. Their statement today is that the attack was "sponsored" by Iran. What does that actually mean? Iran supplied them with the missiles and drones? Does that mean that the US "sponsored" various groups that have used US-sourced weapons (through intermediaries no doubt) to enact various attacks? Iran supplies all sorts of groups with arms as does the US and Britain and Russia.
There is no further information here as to where the missiles were launched from nor who actually pushed the button the Saudi announcement doesn't go there.
That is what most of us are waiting to see as it is that bit of information that should dictate policy. I doubt Congress would act on evidence that did not clearly show Iran as the site of the launch and Iranian operatives as the button pushers.
I'm not a fan of Iran's policies but believe accusations need to have some pretty ironclad proof when it comes to what is at stake here.

[Outcast_Searcher]

OR It’s just baloney meant to calm the market.

in this age of instant communication trying to keep production data quiet would be pointless.
Someone is buying the oil and if they aren't getting what they signed up for then that would be reported somewhere. SA will have to meet all their sale obligations and their storage isn't going to get them more than a couple of weeks.
Besides why in the world would the Saudis want to "calm the market"? They have been working with Russia to reduce supply in an attempt to drive prices higher, a constant battle with US production. They want higher prices which come with an "antsy" market. Higher prices would also make their IPO more attractive. I don't see there is any advantage for them in a calm market, unless it is a calm market with low supply and high demand.

Yup. If you want to discuss conspiracy theories, then having, say, the Russians, the Iranians, and the Saudis all "in on it", and having enough such attacks periodically to keep a nice geopolitical fear premium in the oil market to goose oil prices nicely over time would be a HUGE financial boon to such countries. They could pay KSA back under the table. Hell, they could pay some group of militants to do the strikes, with high-fives all around when the oil price trends higher.

I'm NOT claiming this is the case, although given the financial sums over time, I don't completely discount the possibility of such shenanigans either.

But at least if we're going to go conspiracy theory lore -- let's go with theories that at least make some sense, IMO.

[Plantagenet]

One of the Iranian cruise missiles used in the attack was shot down in the Saudi desert. The missile only has a range of 425 miles so it could not have been fired from Houthis territory. The missile was apparently fired from an Iranian base in southern Iran.

Saudi-arabia-attack-donald-trump-plans-for-military-strike-iran-tehran-shoot-down-us-planes

Trump is reportedly going through a list of possible targets the US could hit in Iran, while the Iranians are threatening to shoot down any US plane that attacks Iran.

My own opinion is that Trump will decide not to retaliate militarily against Iran, but if he does IMHO he should use cruise missiles. The Iranians have already used cruise missiles again KSA, so responding in kind is warranted, and no US pilots would be at risk if the counterattack was done solely using cruise missiles.


debris from Iranian cruise missile recovered in the Saudi desert


Launch of US cruise missile from US Aegis class destroyer

[rockdoc123]

The missile was apparently fired from an Iranian base in southern Iran.

It's the Sun and with unverified sources apparently somewhere in the Pentagon? At least it didn't appear on Page 3 of the Sun.

Again, waiting on an official release from the Whitehouse, which there has not been. Nothing on Fox, nor CNN nor Al Jazeera which is where you would expect to see it almost immediately. Until then I'm not getting excited one way or the other.

And a point I made earlier regardless of whether Iran launched the attack from their territory or not the President cannot respond without an act of Congress (it is essentially going to war). In this particular case (ramifications for regional M East war that would see Israel targeted almost immediately) Congress would not make a decision quickly or without conclusive evidence of culpability.

[Newfie]

I don’t know, that’s the way it’s SUPPOSED to work, but the USA has only declared war 4 times in our history, or so I have read. Even Nam and Korea were not “wars”.

OTOH when Obama tried to get congress (House only I think?) to approve strikes they waffled badly. Made them look ineffectual.

Now if Trump wanted to embarrass Pelozi and the Dems then he might just do that, ask them for guidance. Can you imagine the cat fight that would start.

[Cog]

President Trump does not need Congressional approval to strike at Iran. War Powers Act and all of that. Disregard what the Constitution says about who can declare war. We aren't following that document anymore.

[Revi]

President Trump does not need Congressional approval to strike at Iran. War Powers Act and all of that. Disregard what the Constitution says about who can declare war. We aren't following that document anymore.

I hate to actually agree with Cog, but he's right. There isn't going to be any congressional approval. I think it will happen without any approval and it may happen soon. I thought there was a defense pact with KSA. We'll see...

[dolanbaker]

That looks like it has had a really soft landing (no chance), or it must have been placed there after being retrieved from the landing site.

[Plantagenet]

Iran is now threatening "all out war" if the US or KSA retaliates militarily to the Iranian drone and cruise missile attacks on Saudi oil facilities

middle-east/iran-zarif-saudi-all-out-war

Trump has already ordered more sanctions against Iran. Maybe thats all Trump has the stomach to do. In the past Trump has said the US shouldn't get involved in ME wars unless we get paid for our efforts.

But I'm not sure that will be enough for the Saudis. Prince Muhammad has already shown he is a ruthless, cold-blooded killer in the Kashoggi affair. The Iranians were very insulting towards the Saudis in their message yesterday that the Saudis should "learn from the attacks" not to interfere in Yemen. By launching a military attack against Saudi and then insulting them, it almost seems like the Iranians are trying to provoke the Saudis into attacking them. Arabs are proud people --- I wouldn't be surprised to see Prince Muhammad take the bait and send the Saudi Air Force to attack Iran, even if the US declines to participate in the attack.

Cheers!

[Newfie]

Iran wants an attack? Perhaps. And perhaps that why Trump is not acting, giving them what they want.

Who knows.

[careinke]

One of the things I admire most about President Trump is his courage to NOT go to war.

Now, if he would just take climate change and pollution a little more seriously.......

[asg70]

Trump is a poor statesman and his decisions are almost random. If he keeps the US out of war it's by accident, not design.

[Plantagenet]

Trump sending US troops to KSA

trump-sends-troops-to-middle-east-after-attack-on-saudi-oil-facilities

Its not clear what a small group of US troops are going to be able to do in KSA if it is attacked again. Of oourse that is the point.....the US troops can't do a thing----they are being sent there just to make a show.

Cheers!

[The_Toecutter]

Trump is a poor statesman and his decisions are almost random. If he keeps the US out of war it's by accident, not design.

What's sad is that the quality I highlighted in bold puts him leaps and bounds ahead of the alternative who ran against him. That's not a very high bar to exceed, mind you.

The alternative candidates were deliberately trying to exploit us for every cent and ruin this country, which while this quality may also apply to Trump, the alternative candidates were far more competent at doing such!

As much as I despise Trump, firing John Bolton was the best thing he did. Time will tell just how colossal the rest of his his fuck-ups will be though, and it's not looking good.

To his credit, Trump is the only president since Jimmy Carter who has not yet started any new wars of aggression. It looks more and more likely each day he is going to fuck up any remaining positive aspects about his administration.

Sending troops to Saudi Arabia is just plain stupid, and if he starts a war with Iran, it is going to seal the U.S.'s fate. The Houthi rebels in Yemen already took credit for the attacks, yet everyone in U.S./Israeli/Saudi leadership desperately wants to blame Iran and ignore that the Saudis' deliberate bombing campaigns and sanctions on Yemen deliberately provoked this bombing, with U.S. and Israeli foreign policy supporting this atrocity every step of the way...

Vladimir Putin is not amused at the prospect of his allies being harmed, and he is not making mere threats when he says what he does. Those are promises. U.S. leadership seems to think they can win a nuclear war with Russia. The elites will be able to whole themselves up in bunkers for a few years should they start one, but the rest of us will have to suffer the consequences of their actions.

[Cog]

Trump is a poor statesman and his decisions are almost random. If he keeps the US out of war it's by accident, not design.

Sorry your criminal girl lost.

[Cog]

Trump is a poor statesman and his decisions are almost random. If he keeps the US out of war it's by accident, not design.

Vladimir Putin is not amused at the prospect of his allies being harmed, and he is not making mere threats when he says what he does. Those are promises. U.S. leadership seems to think they can win a nuclear war with Russia. The elites will be able to whole themselves up in bunkers for a few years should they start one, but the rest of us will have to suffer the consequences of their actions.

The only people who think Putin or Russia is relevant to anything are Russian trolls or Shareblue Democrat trolls. Russia is and always was a third world country with nukes. That is all they will ever be, except to Putin knob polishers like ToeJam and Dissident.

[The_Toecutter]

The only people who think Putin or Russia is relevant to anything are Russian trolls or Shareblue Democrat trolls. Russia is and always was a third world country with nukes. That is all they will ever be, except to Putin knob polishers like ToeJam and Dissident.

Are you really stupid enough to think I fall under the category of either a Russian troll or a Democrat troll?

Truth be told I'm neither Russian nor a Democrat. Nor am I in the least bit fond of a borderline-psychotic Russian oligarch billionaire who mercilessly exploits his own people. But I suppose you won't let these facts get in the way of your perception of things.

[Revi]

A friend said that maybe the reason that the price of oil hasn't gone up is that traders think the US can take up the slack with our fracked oil. The Saudis are buying oil to fill their orders. Will the market continue to believe that it's all fine?

[The_Toecutter]

A friend said that maybe the reason that the price of oil hasn't gone up is that traders think the US can take up the slack with our fracked oil. The Saudis are buying oil to fill their orders. Will the market continue to believe that it's all fine?

The market itself has a degree of slack that it didn't have back in 2008. Fracking is a part of that picture. Hard to say whether or not this bombing will have an impact. I think it will have an impact in prices at the pump in the U.S. of $0.20-0.30 for a period of a few weeks, but if another similar event occurs in tandem, there's no telling what could happen.

If Iran gets attacked over this, there's no telling where that could lead. The potential for a drastic price spike in that scenario is there, especially if Iran blocks the Straight of Hormuz. Possibly the makings of a doom scenario, even, although I wouldn't bet on that outcome.

Should there be no black swan events in the near term, I do not think we will have this degree of slack that currently exists deep into the next decade. Fracking field outputs drop off a cliff without warning, and all that fracking did was buy us time while trading one set of problems(looming oil shortage) for another(worsened climate change, contaminated drinking water supplies, ect). And as an added bonus, it will make the drop in oil production off of the peak that much more severe.

Alternative energy coupled with conservation measures could add quite a bit more slack into the equation though, but if this economy is finally allowed to crash to what would otherwise be its natural state instead of being artificially propped up by borrowing from the future, then a consumption drop will happen on its own without conservation measures, with a corresponding crash in prices.

[Ibon]

Dont forget one of the largest sources of slack, all that discretionary use of energy that serves no utility beyond indulgence.