My Take on the Supposed Drone Strikes in Saudi Arabia

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

After reading the various posts yesterday, then thinking over all of the opinions presented, I wanted to post my views on the subject for consideration.

First, I do not believe that the strikes against the refinery were accomplished by ‘pre-programmed’ drones flying to the target and then crashing into the facility. Looking at the photos, the strikes appear to be too precise to have been accomplished by drones flying a pre-set course over hundreds of kilometers of open desert, with wind and weather along the route being unknown and therefore not programmed into the flight path, and then accomplishing precision strikes against specific structures. Furthermore, you would have to have been able to do this with multiple drones simultaneously. Also, the damage to the tanks does not seem consistent with a ‘kamikaze’ style of attack where an aircraft is 'crashed' into the target.

If my previous assumption is correct, and the attack is still presumed to have been carried out by drones, as opposed to say cruise missiles, then to achieve the accuracy shown in the provided photographs being posted, these drones would have to have been remotely piloted from a ‘command & control’ facility. Again, if the damage to the facility is from some form of missile, then it would appear that these remotely piloted drones were armed and similar to the US Predator family of drones.

If no drone wreckage is found in the rubble, and we assume that the attack was carried out by drones, we now have another issue. Not only did the drones need to infiltrate Saudi airspace – they had to successfully exfiltrate it as well. Unless the drones were deemed sacrificial, the drones would have flown to some location where they could be recovered.

Once the situation in the Persian Gulf began to heat up seriously several weeks ago, it is only logical that the US would have repositioned a Keyhole satellite (or whatever they have up there these days) into  a geosynchronous position above the Strait of Hormuz. If we assume that this is the case, and based on what is publicly known about the capabilities of satellite imaging, we can almost be assured that any incident of multiple drones launching from anywhere in the region, infiltrating Saudi air space, successfully attacking a target, then exfiltrating Saudi airspace, would have been picked up by the satellite.

If all the above is reasonably correct, then the aggressor is a known entity. Furthermore, with signals intelligence being what it is these days (think NSA, GCHQ, Five Eyes, etc.…), you can almost be certain that ‘we’ know where the command and control center was located during the attack on the facility. 

For some reason people seem to think that what they read in the press or see in the news is the latest, most up to date information, on any given event. They are fooling themselves. The intelligence gathering capability of most developed nations is daunting to say the least, and the people who run these organizations are not some arch-typical, Hollywood generated buffoons, they are people who have been entrusted with the security of nations. Us, the great unwashed masses will NEVER be told the whole story while it unfolds. Why should we be informed of issues of national security, that would defeat the purpose?

In my opinion, considering the above, the players or players responsible for the attack in Saudi Arabia have already been identified. What the response will be is another story, but be assured that those planning the response are not operating ‘in the dark’ with limited or inaccurate information.

 

 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

people seem to think that what they read in the press or see in the news is the latest, most up to date information, on any given event. They are fooling themselves

6 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

If all the above is reasonably correct, then the aggressor is a known entity.

7 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

the players or players responsible for the attack in Saudi Arabia have already been identified.

Bang on

 

 

[John Foote + 1,135]

Spy satellites can't be put in geosynchronous orbit, they are in quite low orbits, 200 miles instead of roughly 26,000. However we have drones with extensive hang time. And your point that we probably have extensive evidence I absolutely agree with, but Iran is exceptional at utilizing stateless actors. Exactly how/what/how do you retaliate without hurting yourself more. 

Unless you are an arms merchant or manufacturer, I find it hard to see how the west can benefit in a shooting war, which is unfortunate since we truly outgun them. And isn't an issue of picking good guys over the bad ones. It's which bad guy we think benefits/enriches us. 

At interesting take https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/us-will-not-win-war-iran.

The very short, Iran may well feel a war helps them. 

"While there is obviously a sharp hard power disparity between Iran and the US, the simple truth (as the US knows too well) is that it will count little towards the outcome of the war, and more importantly to post-conflict strategic rebalancing. 

In the critical areas of asymmetric conflict, intelligence, information operations and proxy warfare, Iran’s skills and capabilities are superior to the core Western powers." 

The post 9-11 record of the US in understanding how to fight in the Middle East is pretty horrendous. We just don't get the region. Our right, and might, kind of play against us, unless rubble is your end goal.