Oil Price Editorial: Beware Of Saudi Oil Tanker Sabotage Stories

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Hope this doesn't get me into hot water, but I am going to share the beginning excerpt from a current Oil Price Editorial, which is only available to Premium subscribers. I am sharing because this Editorial message has some important messages of caution, and remarkably enough, I happen to agree with the general gist of the caution presented here, with the information I have seen so far from a wide variety of sources.  Dead on accurate Editorial, in my view.  (Yes, I know, I am highly opinionated; as always, you are free to disagree.)

Note that this excerpt is only the first section of the Oil Price Editorial, less than half of the full editorial, which goes on later in depth about Libya Lobbying Trump with Oil Sweeteners, and then the regular feature of the absolutely wonderful Oil & Gas Playbook, which provides a current roundup of global O&G highlights, most of which are not adequately covered by Mainstream Media News / Google News.

And no, I'm not getting paid to promote this editorial or Oil Price.  I'm just freely shooting my mouth off again about global Oil & Gas, and thought that more O&G eyes should see this particular editorial, as tensions continue to get deliberately ratcheted up.  This whole situation is apparently being stoked repeatedly to explode, and would have significant global consequences if the incendiary provocations (false flags?) succeed.

Happily, in my blatherings as a motor-mouthed moderator on this forum, Oil Price staff have never told me to shut up or forbid me from discussing certain "hot" topics.  (I'm not Oil Price staff.)  But I may be pushing the envelope a bit here by sharing some of their proprietary Premium Content. 

@TomTom @CMOP @Rodent please delete this thread if I am out of line here.  It's just that I was very much impressed by this specific editorial, which is unfortunately not accessible by non-subscribers.
 

 

Beware Of Saudi Oil Tanker Sabotage Stories

By Editorial Dept - May 15, 2019, 12:00 PM CDT

Beware of Saudi/UAE Reports of Oil Tanker “Sabotage”

In the span of several days, Saudi Arabia has claimed that two of its oil tankers and a pipeline have been attacked, with the clear implication being that Iran was responsible. The initial reports of a “sabotage attack” on two Saudi oil tankers off the UAE coast (near the Strait of Hormuz) came out of the UAE on Sunday. There have been no details about these attacks, and no evidence whatsoever, with the Saudis saying only that there has been structural damage. Then, on Tuesday, the Saudis said that drones targeted two oil pumping stations along its East-West pipeline, forcing Aramco to halt pumping to evaluate the damage. Output and exports continued without disruption, nonetheless.

The drone attack on the Saudi pipeline has been claimed by Yemen’s Houthis, who align with Iran in what is essentially a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran in Yemen. There is no clear evidence of the alleged attack on the Saudi oil vessels off the UAE coast, but oil prices rose on speculation regardless. Satellite imagery of the vessels does not show any damage, and our assessment of Houthi weaponry suggests that they wouldn’t have reached this area of the coast, nor would they have launched such an attack without claiming it.

The Iranians are using the threat of withdrawing entirely from the nuclear deal to leverage Europe to find a way around US sanctions. It’s a game of leverage that Iran won’t win because Europe is too weak to make it happen. Regardless of this escalation, it is simply not in Iran’s interest to take pot shots at Saudi oil tankers. Iran’s only move in the Gulf right now would be a show of naval force against the US, which it will not do at present. Iran views all US moves right now as psychological warfare, and it’s not biting.

The danger here comes in the form of warmongering in Washington, where administration officials are keen to suggest that Iran is openly attacking Saudi oil destined for the United States at a time when the US is trying to make a show of force in the Gulf against Iran, readying warships to Israel’s delight. There is no point whatsoever in Iran launching a secret sabotage attack of this low-level nature on Saudi vessels. This was almost certainly not the work of Iran. All other actors in this incident would have far more to gain by such an attack, for which there is still no evidence.

Also, beware of any evidence that emerges in the coming days concerning any weapons that may have been used in these attacks. Any attempt to link up that weaponry to a specific actor is irrelevant. The Saudis and the UAE have been arming al-Qaida in Yemen, with US weapons, which have also made their way into the hands of Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi. There is a bonanza of weaponry floating around this region and it is just as feasible that the Saudis could be attacked with American weapons.

While the US is using the alleged attack on Saudi oil tankers as a springboard to move against Iran, this attack is more likely the work of a US ally and not an Iranian proxy. This will be a war of fake intelligence. It is also an extremely dangerous 2020 election campaign stunt that goes far beyond the last war game in Iraq.

For investors, the media coverage of this event is a minefield. In an attempt to do damage control for MBS after the Khashoggi affair, the Saudis have seen a senior PR advisor (Richard Minz) drop them as a client. Mintz was grooming the crown prince’s brother, Khalid, on ‘behavior’ as ambassador to the US. The remaining big-name PR lobbyist is Michael Petruzello. But in the meantime, the PR arm of MBS is putting together a master list of journalists (with an eye to the West) who are ranked as friends and foes, with the former further ranked in terms of the level of willingness to engage (i.e. willingness to sell the Saudi story). This document has not yet leaked, but when it does it will be a circus because it will basically lay out which journalists have been bought by Saudi money. And that is only part of the media campaign: Both the Saudis and UAE control an army of social media bots through accounts they acquired from dead people. They use these bots to control their messages against Qatar and Senator Lindsay Graham, as well as other enemies, according to our sources, including an Israeli former intelligence source and a DC lobbyist. Be careful what you consume in the media blitz on this one.

 

< snip part 2 and part 3 of the Editorial >

[Cowpoke + 70]

There was also a "Norwegian-registered oil products tanker among the vessels hit, along with a UAE fuel bunker barge". So I am sure there would be some evidence produced soon.

 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

I am puzzled by the total lack of evidence in regard to the alleged damage to the tankers.

Furthermore, if the Houthis were going to attack Saudi tankers wouldn't they use the tried and true method that was used to destroy the Saudi ferry a few years ago as opposed to limpet mines?

[Cowpoke + 70]

This site has compiled a few pics and videos: https://therearenosunglasses.wordpress.com/2019/05/14/gulf-tankers-attack-just-another-false-flag-provocation/

 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, Cowpoke said:

This site has compiled a few pics and videos: https://therearenosunglasses.wordpress.com/2019/05/14/gulf-tankers-attack-just-another-false-flag-provocation/

Have you read any of the Other links on that site? Serious tin foil hat zone. 

[Guillaume Albasini + 851]

The blame game is going on :

The US is blaming Iran

Iran is blaming Israel

Israel is blaming Iran

 

The attacks on the 4 tankers were carefully planned to cause limited damage. Enough to stop the ships and attract media attention but without sinking the ships or causing major oil spills. That seems to exclude some of the usual suspects like ISIS or Al Qaida. The terrorist groups try usually to cause major damages and they claim their attacks. It's interesting to note that the attack on the 4 tankers was from the start labelled as "sabotage" rather than "terror attack".

So it's probably the job of a navy commando from a special force unit probably operating from a civilian ship nearby used as a mother ship.

It can be the Iranians to show they can block the oil flow out of KSA even if its not crossing the Hormuz Strait.

It can be the israelis or the Saudis to push the US towards a war against their Iranian foe.

I suppose the intelligence community is now carefully checking the path of all the ships in the area in the days before the "sabotages", trying to identify a ship that navigated near the four sabotaged ships, the possible mother ship of the commando.

 

[Falcon + 222]

17 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

 

@TomTom @CMOP @Rodent

MBS is putting together a master list of journalists (with an eye to the West) who are ranked as friends and foes, with the former further ranked in terms of the level of willingness to engage (i.e. willingness to sell the Saudi story). This document has not yet leaked, but when it does it will be a circus because it will basically lay out which journalists have been bought by Saudi money

Do you know where OilPrice journalist are ranked ?

Edited May 16, 2019 by Falcon

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

2 minutes ago, Falcon said:

Do you know where OilPrice journalist are ranked ?

The few regular Oil Price journalists that I know (only online) all have a strong independent streak.  Why do you think they put up with my scattershot verbal blatherings on the forum?

It's laughable to me that any regular Oil Price writer could be "bought" by Saudis or Iranians or others.  Independent is a keyword here.  Any insinuation otherwise will get a glare from me; you have no idea idea how much I use the Private Messaging feature on this forum to communicate privately with quite a number of people, including staff writers.

Some of the Oil Price writers comment regularly on this forum, very much independently, using a nom de plume for their comments here and their real names for their articles.

[Arjun + 39]

11 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Hope this doesn't get me into hot water, but I am going to share the beginning excerpt from a current Oil Price Editorial, which is only available to Premium subscribers. I am sharing because this Editorial message has some important messages of caution, and remarkably enough, I happen to agree with the general gist of the caution presented here, with the information I have seen so far from a wide variety of sources.  Dead on accurate Editorial, in my view.  (Yes, I know, I am highly opinionated; as always, you are free to disagree.)

Note that this excerpt is only the first section of the Oil Price Editorial, less than half of the full editorial, which goes on later in depth about Libya Lobbying Trump with Oil Sweeteners, and then the regular feature of the absolutely wonderful Oil & Gas Playbook, which provides a current roundup of global O&G highlights, most of which are not adequately covered by Mainstream Media News / Google News.

And no, I'm not getting paid to promote this editorial or Oil Price.  I'm just freely shooting my mouth off again about global Oil & Gas, and thought that more O&G eyes should see this particular editorial, as tensions continue to get deliberately ratcheted up.  This whole situation is apparently being stoked repeatedly to explode, and would have significant global consequences if the incendiary provocations (false flags?) succeed.

Happily, in my blatherings as a motor-mouthed moderator on this forum, Oil Price staff have never told me to shut up or forbid me from discussing certain "hot" topics.  (I'm not Oil Price staff.)  But I may be pushing the envelope a bit here by sharing some of their proprietary Premium Content. 

@TomTom @CMOP @Rodent please delete this thread if I am out of line here.  It's just that I was very much impressed by this specific editorial, which is unfortunately not accessible by non-subscribers.
 

 

Beware Of Saudi Oil Tanker Sabotage Stories

By Editorial Dept - May 15, 2019, 12:00 PM CDT

Beware of Saudi/UAE Reports of Oil Tanker “Sabotage”

In the span of several days, Saudi Arabia has claimed that two of its oil tankers and a pipeline have been attacked, with the clear implication being that Iran was responsible. The initial reports of a “sabotage attack” on two Saudi oil tankers off the UAE coast (near the Strait of Hormuz) came out of the UAE on Sunday. There have been no details about these attacks, and no evidence whatsoever, with the Saudis saying only that there has been structural damage. Then, on Tuesday, the Saudis said that drones targeted two oil pumping stations along its East-West pipeline, forcing Aramco to halt pumping to evaluate the damage. Output and exports continued without disruption, nonetheless.

The drone attack on the Saudi pipeline has been claimed by Yemen’s Houthis, who align with Iran in what is essentially a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran in Yemen. There is no clear evidence of the alleged attack on the Saudi oil vessels off the UAE coast, but oil prices rose on speculation regardless. Satellite imagery of the vessels does not show any damage, and our assessment of Houthi weaponry suggests that they wouldn’t have reached this area of the coast, nor would they have launched such an attack without claiming it.

The Iranians are using the threat of withdrawing entirely from the nuclear deal to leverage Europe to find a way around US sanctions. It’s a game of leverage that Iran won’t win because Europe is too weak to make it happen. Regardless of this escalation, it is simply not in Iran’s interest to take pot shots at Saudi oil tankers. Iran’s only move in the Gulf right now would be a show of naval force against the US, which it will not do at present. Iran views all US moves right now as psychological warfare, and it’s not biting.

The danger here comes in the form of warmongering in Washington, where administration officials are keen to suggest that Iran is openly attacking Saudi oil destined for the United States at a time when the US is trying to make a show of force in the Gulf against Iran, readying warships to Israel’s delight. There is no point whatsoever in Iran launching a secret sabotage attack of this low-level nature on Saudi vessels. This was almost certainly not the work of Iran. All other actors in this incident would have far more to gain by such an attack, for which there is still no evidence.

Also, beware of any evidence that emerges in the coming days concerning any weapons that may have been used in these attacks. Any attempt to link up that weaponry to a specific actor is irrelevant. The Saudis and the UAE have been arming al-Qaida in Yemen, with US weapons, which have also made their way into the hands of Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi. There is a bonanza of weaponry floating around this region and it is just as feasible that the Saudis could be attacked with American weapons.

While the US is using the alleged attack on Saudi oil tankers as a springboard to move against Iran, this attack is more likely the work of a US ally and not an Iranian proxy. This will be a war of fake intelligence. It is also an extremely dangerous 2020 election campaign stunt that goes far beyond the last war game in Iraq.

For investors, the media coverage of this event is a minefield. In an attempt to do damage control for MBS after the Khashoggi affair, the Saudis have seen a senior PR advisor (Richard Minz) drop them as a client. Mintz was grooming the crown prince’s brother, Khalid, on ‘behavior’ as ambassador to the US. The remaining big-name PR lobbyist is Michael Petruzello. But in the meantime, the PR arm of MBS is putting together a master list of journalists (with an eye to the West) who are ranked as friends and foes, with the former further ranked in terms of the level of willingness to engage (i.e. willingness to sell the Saudi story). This document has not yet leaked, but when it does it will be a circus because it will basically lay out which journalists have been bought by Saudi money. And that is only part of the media campaign: Both the Saudis and UAE control an army of social media bots through accounts they acquired from dead people. They use these bots to control their messages against Qatar and Senator Lindsay Graham, as well as other enemies, according to our sources, including an Israeli former intelligence source and a DC lobbyist. Be careful what you consume in the media blitz on this one.

 

< snip part 2 and part 3 of the Editorial >

My dad suggested Gulf of tonkin 2.0. Hope there arent any dancing men on neighbouring ships, I am truly hoping Bolton doesnt make Trump invade Iran. A lot of business depends on stable oil prices. My margins are almost down to 50 cents now.

[wrs + 893]

Well it's not impossible that it's a false flag.  On the other hand, the timing suggests a warning that oil flows from KSA can be selectively  reduced without an all out war and would impair KSA more than anyone else. That is the message that Iran would like to send I think.  So it makes sense to me that Iran would use a two pronged strategy to get the message across.  I would by no means expect Iran to take credit because doing so would hurt them.

If the US and KSA cannot directly link Iran to the attacks then they have no real causus beli and thus, I don't see this as a false flag because in one case it's clearly the Houthis and the other case it's sabotage by an unknown party.  The Houthis have been attacking Saudi oil facilities for several years with rockets to no avail.  The drones is a new attack vector and makes perfect sense.  No false flag there for sure but proving Iran ordered the attack is impossible.

There are plenty of enemies of MBS in that area who in public are probably supporting him.  The US needn't be involved with all this and the whole nonsense of global oil security is the kind of rubric used in the event of a false flag but so far, this isn't rising to the level of a successful false flag.  So until the US does something in response, this isn't a false flag.  Disabling tankers is a real threat if it can be done this easily so the question becomes, is it this easy?  TWT.

 

Found a good article on the Houthi Drones

Edited May 16, 2019 by wrs

[Falcon + 222]

On 5/16/2019 at 8:24 AM, Arjun said:

My dad suggested Gulf of tonkin 2.0. Hope there arent any dancing men on neighbouring ships, I am truly hoping Bolton doesnt make Trump invade Iran. A lot of business depends on stable oil prices. My margins are almost down to 50 cents now.

My opinion.  All this war talk is just bravado.  Positioning.  Saudi MBS and UAE MBZ have already spent millions having their K Street lobbyist making campaign payments to congressional politicians that were on the fence regarding the Yemen bill that would withdraw US support for their war with Houthis.

Trump should get the US totally out of the Mideast.  The US has spent trillions there.  The US (and the world) needed the oil at one time. The "world" still might need their oil, but if they don't want to put any skin in the game it's their problem. I say no more freeloading. 

I know Russia wants influence there. Let them have it and the headaches to go along with it. 

Really, it's nothing but a snake pit. 

Edited May 17, 2019 by Falcon

[Arjun + 39]

53 minutes ago, Falcon said:

My opinion.  All this war talk is just bravado.  Positioning.  Saudi MBS and UAE MBZ have already spent millions having their K Street lobbyist making campaign payments to congressional politicians that were on the fence regarding the Yemen bill that would withdraw US support for their war with Houthis. 

I just dont want dancing men, just stable oil prices so I can continue to grow my business. Container prices are already crazy and bulk freight is on the rise. Gentrification of the economy is slowly underway. The IMO 2020 is upon us and freight will rise even more almost wiping out my margins.

MBS, Trump are frontmen for a greater agenda ( I dont profess to know it, but I know something like this has to exist). Let us hope that it doesnt include invading iran just like iraq. NO more Projects for the new American Century please.

[Falcon + 222]

2 hours ago, Arjun said:

Let us hope that it doesnt include invading iran 

Trump has no desire to invade Iran.

US should have never been in the Iraq wars. 

US should not have any military in KSA, Qatar, Iraq, Bahrain . 

US should not be involved with KSA conflict with Yemen.

What do you mean by "dancing men".

[RuudinFrance + 25]

16 hours ago, Cowpoke said:

This site has compiled a few pics and videos: https://therearenosunglasses.wordpress.com/2019/05/14/gulf-tankers-attack-just-another-false-flag-provocation/

 

Al Jazeera news shows/has shown some video as well.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

I found a photograph of that Norwegian tanker registered in Bergen, all painted on the stern.  The shell plating in the extreme stern was busted in at the waterline.  Now that compartment is usually where the steering box that controls the rudder is sitting.  That steering gear on that size ship is typically actuated by two large hydraulic pistons.  Even if that compartment is totally flooded it should not affect the operation of the tanker.  

The other place on a larger ship that you could blow a hole into that would not materially affect the operation would be in the forward chainlocker  (where all that anchor chain is stowed).  If that got holed, all you would do is rust up some rusty chain.  Again, that is severed from the rest of the ship with a bulkhead. 

Hitting it right at the waterline suggests a rubber-raft night attack, with guys with paddles sneaking up on the ship, planting some explosives or a magnet mine, setting the charge, and taking off.  The inherent noise of the generators running in the engine compartment would muffle outside sounds, but to avoid detection from someone on deck, I can see guys in black wetsuits sneaking up in a black inflatable, possibly with an electric fishing-motor outboard driven by a couple of car batteries.  

If these guys really wanted to do damage, they would have whacked the tankers at the engine compartment, flooding that area.  That would have required the boats to be towed to drydock, either in Port Said, or Malta, or Gibraltar, or possibly some port in India.  Note how that was not done. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

12 hours ago, Guillaume Albasini said:

the possible mother ship of the commando.

You can reasonably assume that the "mother ship" will be some very small vessel, something of less than 30 feet, just big enough to have a "below decks" to hide the gear from prying eyes, and with a compressor below decks to pump air into an inflatable boat to be used for the assault.  Something about the size that impoverished inshore fishermen or shellfish collectors would use.  Maybe about the size of a Maine lobster boat.  No chance in finding it. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

19 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

There is no point whatsoever in Iran launching a secret sabotage attack of this low-level nature on Saudi vessels. This was almost certainly not the work of Iran.

Of course this was the handiwork of Iranian commandos.  They are sending a message to the ship and cargo insurers in London, mostly at Lloyd's of London:   Watch out, we can and will whack your insureds.   Now, what happens?  The Insurers will be raising the premiums, and that will add several dollars per barrel onto the price of gulf crude.  See, two can play the price game.  The US tries to force the Iranians to leave money at the table, having to discount their oil to move the stuff.  Now they are doing the same to the others, specifically the Saudis and those who buy from them, and the shipowners that will move those cargoes.  You don't have to sink anything or bust open a tank and make a big mess to send insurance premiums soaring.  It will motivate buyers to start looking to Nigeria and Angola and Russia as sources for crude.  You can hurt the Saudis and force them to leave money at the table just by busting open some shell plating.  The Insurers will do the rest. 

[Happy Go Lucky + 25]

36 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

You can reasonably assume that the "mother ship" will be some very small vessel, something of less than 30 feet, just big enough to have a "below decks" to hide the gear from prying eyes, and with a compressor below decks to pump air into an inflatable boat to be used for the assault.  Something about the size that impoverished inshore fishermen or shellfish collectors would use.  Maybe about the size of a Maine lobster boat.  No chance in finding it. 

" You can reasonably assume that the "mother ship" will be some very small vessel, something of less than 30 feet "

Or....  a well trained, well fed, Beluga whale

[Guillaume Albasini + 851]

Or ... a mine laying sea drone !

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/underwater-game-changer-us-navy-might-soon-have-submarine-motherships-45832

https://www.militaryaerospace.com/unmanned/article/16726886/navy-eyes-unmanned-underwater-vehicle-uuv-weapons-payloads-to-stop-or-disable-160foot-ships-at-sea

Underwater drones can even look like a shark or a tuna fish as with the US Navy GhostSwimmer prototype :

https://defense-update.com/20141212_ghostswimmer.html

[Arjun + 39]

10 hours ago, Falcon said:

Trump has no desire to invade Iran.

US should have never been in the Iraq wars. 

US should not have any military in KSA, Qatar, Iraq, Bahrain . 

US should not be involved with KSA conflict with Yemen.

What do you mean by "dancing men".

The 5 dancing rooftop guys, its probably just a conspiracy theory (probably), its part of the 9/11 thing. I just use it as a way of pointing fingers to them.

[Rodent + 1,424]

23 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

The few regular Oil Price journalists that I know (only online) all have a strong independent streak.  Why do you think they put up with my scattershot verbal blatherings on the forum?

It's laughable to me that any regular Oil Price writer could be "bought" by Saudis or Iranians or others.  Independent is a keyword here.  Any insinuation otherwise will get a glare from me; you have no idea idea how much I use the Private Messaging feature on this forum to communicate privately with quite a number of people, including staff writers.

Some of the Oil Price writers comment regularly on this forum, very much independently, using a nom de plume for their comments here and their real names for their articles.

I know several of them personally. I vetted some of them myself. Lovely people, all of them if I do say so myself. Except for Nick Cunningham, who repeatedly takes story ideas out from under me.

I write as I please, as do my writers. 

NO ONE TELLS RODENT WHAT TO DO

I suspect if I were to show up at all on that list at all that I would be ranked as foe, only because Ive had so much fun shooting barbs at OPEC. 

 

[Marc Savoie + 19]

"They also said that artificial sweeteners were safe, WMDs were in Iraq and Anna Nicole married for love" ~Shooter 2007

[Oil_Engineer + 86]

On 5/16/2019 at 2:40 AM, Guillaume Albasini said:

The blame game is going on :

The US is blaming Iran

Iran is blaming Israel

Israel is blaming Iran

 

The attacks on the 4 tankers were carefully planned to cause limited damage. Enough to stop the ships and attract media attention but without sinking the ships or causing major oil spills. That seems to exclude some of the usual suspects like ISIS or Al Qaida. The terrorist groups try usually to cause major damages and they claim their attacks. It's interesting to note that the attack on the 4 tankers was from the start labelled as "sabotage" rather than "terror attack".

So it's probably the job of a navy commando from a special force unit probably operating from a civilian ship nearby used as a mother ship.

It can be the Iranians to show they can block the oil flow out of KSA even if its not crossing the Hormuz Strait.

It can be the israelis or the Saudis to push the US towards a war against their Iranian foe.

I suppose the intelligence community is now carefully checking the path of all the ships in the area in the days before the "sabotages", trying to identify a ship that navigated near the four sabotaged ships, the possible mother ship of the commando.

 

From the photos of the damage to the Andrea Victory the charges were set at the water line, so it was probably done from a small craft, not by divers.  limpet mines are very simple devices to use, it would not necessarily require a trained commando to carry out this type of raid.  Attacking the stern is usually intended to disable a vessel, but not sink it.  Shaft alley is a small contained area, and the watertight doors are always kept shut.  Fujairah port is only 20 miles from the maritime boundary, so my bet would be on a small boat with a couple of people, launched from a larger vessel, dashing in to set a couple of limpet mines, then dashing back out, but a run all the way from the Iranian coast would not be too difficult.  Small craft would easily run under the coastal radar.  A terror attack would be something like what happened to the USS Cole, where a single operator drove a small boat full of explosives into the side of the ship, with the intent of sinking it and killing the crew.

[Brett B + 4]

So we have 1) motivation from all sides to increase oil prices 2) relatively timid technique avoids serious damage or spill 3) carrier group dispatched same day of "attacks" 4) Saudi public statements of intent to get oil to "85 dollars a barrel" and speculate whether financial hardship would be at a point where Iranian leadership would risk a direct confrontation with the US? The proven method to get a summit meeting with the POTUS is of course to detonate a nuclear device, not dent a few ships in the Strait of Hormuz... dangerous games, timid moves. Not unlike Venezuela... I guess we can be happy China is staying out of geopolitics 8-)

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

14 hours ago, Marc Savoie said:

"They also said that artificial sweeteners were safe, WMDs were in Iraq and Anna Nicole married for love" ~Shooter 2007

And yet another impeccable source...