I'm surprised we're not hearing more about this. At best, this will affect the oil market for quite a while. At worst? It could get really nasty in the Middle East.



Onward and upward,
airforce

Going to be interesting to see 'who' does the counter attack on an Iranian facility. It does not hurt the US as we are energy independent supposedly. If true it will only increase prices for US oil overseas.

Can the Saudi's form a Moslem country coalition to do the counter strike?

We're likely to see gas prices rise here, too. Everyone needs oil and gas, and oil companies are not altruistic. If they can get more for their oil by selling it to Upper Slobovia, then that's where they're going to sell it.

Onward and upward,
airforce

THE FUTURE IS DRONE WARFARE

by Matt Bracken | Sep 15, 2019 |

The recent attacks against Saudi oil facilities by approximately ten unspecified drones has me thinking about their growing potential in future near-peer, asymmetrical, or civil war scenarios. By leveraging its effect via ultra-precise placement, a cheap COTS drone with a small grenade can do as much or more damage as a major world power’s long-range cruise missile carrying a one-ton high-explosive payload. Unlike a cruise missile, a small drone can be flown, for example, under an ordnance depot warehouse roof to alight exactly upon the most vulnerable spot, measured in inches. In the recent Saudi attack, a swarm of drones launched from an unknown distance have crippled that nation’s ability to export petroleum products, leading to international economic consequences. The small size of attack drones and their global availability makes them especially attractive to non-state actors, or to nations (Iran in the Saudi case) who wish to arm proxies with effective weapons while maintaining deniability. In the current Saudi (or a potential United States civil war scenario), with Balkanized ethnic or religious groups mixed across the battle space, it will always be possible for an enemy guerrilla team to get within drone-launching range of their targets.

The Saudi drone attack reminded me of this story from 2017:

Kaboom! Russian Drone With Thermite Grenade Blows Up a Billion Dollars of Ukrainian Ammo

A single grenade-carrying drone set off one of the largest explosions in recent memory.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/mi...sia-drone-thermite-grenade-ukraine-ammo/

Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpwEZ_9VLD8

“A drone carrying a grenade infiltrated an ammunition dump in Ukraine, setting off an explosion that caused an astounding billion dollars worth of damage. The incident points to the growing use of drones in wartime, particularly off the shelf civilian products harnessed to conduct sabotage and other attacks. Ukraine’s domestic intelligence service, the SBU, believes that a drone carrying a Russian thermite hand grenade caused a series of titanic explosions at Balakliya, a military base in Eastern Ukraine. Amateur video of the incident posted on YouTube shows a raging fire spewing out of control artillery rockets, and an explosion and shockwave that sent civilians nearby reeling. One person was killed in the attack and five were injured.

“The drone is believed to have carried a ZMG-1 thermite grenade. Thermite, a combination of iron oxide (rust) and aluminum powder. The stuff burns extremely hot and easily could have gotten through wooden crates to detonate the munitions inside. The ammo dump is just 60 miles from the Russian/Ukrainian border, where fighting recently took place. According to PM contributor David Hambling writing at Scout Warrior, it’s not the first time military bases in Ukraine have been hit by drones. A similar attempt to blow up the Balakliya base took place in December 2015, when drones dropped 14 grenades. The fires were extinguished by Ukrainian servicemen, and one grenade, a ZMG-1, was recovered.

“In October 2015, an attack on an ammunition depot at Svatovo destroyed 3,000 tons of explosives and damaged 1,700 nearby homes. Two other attacks on ammo dumps took place in February, and another facility was attacked in March.

“Guerrilla groups, terrorists, and perhaps even governments worldwide have rapidly weaponized consumer drones, effectively turning hobbyist devices into lethal weapons capable of killing. In 2016, two French Special Forces soldiers were injured and two Kurdish fighters were killed by an exploding ISIS drone. ISIS has conducted numerous drone attacks during the Mosul campaign and terrorism experts fear weaponized drones could spread outside conflict zones.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham says we should "consider" a strike on Iranian oil refineries. Because of course he would.



Onward and upward,
airforce

If You Think The Price Of Oil Is Skyrocketing Now, Just Wait Until The War Starts…

September 15, 2019 by Michael Snyder

In the aftermath of the most dramatic attack on Saudi oil facilities that we have ever seen, the price of oil has exploded higher. The Wall Street Journal is calling this attack “the Big One”, and President Trump appears to be indicating that some sort of military retaliation is coming. Needless to say, a direct military strike on Iran could spark a major war in the Middle East, and that would be absolutely devastating for the entire global economy. Just about everything that we buy has to be moved, and moving stuff takes energy. When the price of oil gets really high, that tends to create inflation because the price of oil is a factor in virtually everything that we buy. In addition, a really high price for oil also tends to slow down economic activity, and this is something that we witnessed just prior to the financial crisis of 2008. And if this crisis in the Middle East stretches over an extended period of time, it could ultimately result in a phenomenon known as “stagflation” where we have rapidly rising prices and weaker economic activity simultaneously. The last time we experienced such a thing was in the 1970s, and nobody really remembers the U.S. economy of the 1970s favorably.

The damage caused by the “drone attacks” in Saudi Arabia was immense. According to the Daily Mail, “huge plumes of black smoke” could be seen pouring out of a key Saudi oil facility…

Infernos raged at the plant in Abqaiq, Bugayg, and the country’s second largest oilfield in Khurais yesterday morning after Tehran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen fired a flurry of rockets.

Huge plumes of black smoke could be seen coming from the oil facility.

Houthi rebels in Yemen have publicly taken responsibility for the attacks, but they may or may not be telling the truth.

At this point, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is completely rejecting that explanation, and he is claiming that there is “no evidence the strikes had come from Yemen”…

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo blamed Iran for coordinated strikes on the heart of Saudi Arabia’s oil industry, saying they marked an unprecedented attack on the world’s energy supply.

The strikes shut down half of the kingdom’s crude production on Saturday, potentially roiling petroleum prices and demonstrating the power of Iran’s proxies.

Iran-allied Houthi rebels in neighboring Yemen claimed credit for the attack, saying they sent 10 drones to strike at important facilities in Saudi Arabia’s oil-rich Eastern Province. But Mr. Pompeo said there was no evidence the strikes had come from Yemen.

And according to Reuters, another unnamed “U.S. official” told them that the attacks came from “west-northwest of the targets”…

The U.S. official, who asked not to be named, said there were 19 points of impact in the attack on Saudi facilities and that evidence showed the launch area was west-northwest of the targets – the direction of Iran – not south from Yemen.

The official added that Saudi officials had indicated they had seen signs that cruise missiles were used in the attack, which is inconsistent with the Iran-aligned Houthi group’s claim that it conducted the attack with 10 drones.

Of course drones don’t have to travel in a straight line, and cruise missiles don’t either, and so we may never know for sure where the attacks originated.

But we do know that the Houthi rebels in Yemen are being backed by Iran, and we also know that the Shia militias in Iraq are also being backed by Iran.

So whether the attacks originated in Yemen, southern Iraq or Iran itself, it is not going to be too difficult for U.S. officials to place the blame on the Iranians, and we should expect some sort of military response.

In fact, President Trump posted the following message to Twitter just a little while ago…

Saudi Arabia oil supply was attacked. There is reason to believe that we know the culprit, are locked and loaded depending on verification, but are waiting to hear from the Kingdom as to who they believe was the cause of this attack, and under what terms we would proceed!

Of course U.S. airstrikes against Iran itself could ultimately spark World War 3, and most Americans are completely clueless that we could literally be on the precipice of a major war.

According to the Saudis, the equivalent of 5.7 million barrels a day of oil production were affected by the attacks. Saudi Arabia typically produces about 9.8 million barrels a day, and so that is a really big deal.

When the markets reopened on Sunday night, oil futures exploded higher. In fact, according to Zero Hedge this was the biggest jump ever…

With traders in a state of near-frenzy, with a subset of fintwit scrambling (and failing) to calculate what the limit move in oil would be (hint: there is none for Brent), moments ago brent reopened for trading in the aftermath of Saturday’s attack on the “world’s most important oil processing plant“, and exploded some 20% higher, to a high of $71.95 from the Friday $60.22 close, its biggest jump since futures started trading in 1988.

As I write this article, the price of Brent crude is currently sitting at $66.89, although at least one analyst is warning that the price of oil could soon shoot up to “as high as $100 per barrel” if the Saudis are not able to quickly resume their previous level of production…

The oil market will rally by $5-10 per barrel when it opens on Monday and may spike to as high as $100 per barrel if Saudi Arabia fails to quickly resume oil supply lost after attacks over the weekend, traders and analysts said.

Saudi officials have already told us that they anticipate that a third of the lost oil output will be restored on Monday.

But because of the extensive damage that has been done, restoring the remainder of the lost output could take “weeks” or even “months”.

In the short-term, President Trump has “authorized the release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve“, and that should help stabilize prices somewhat.

However, if a full-blown war with Iran erupts, nothing is going to be able to calm the markets. In such a scenario, the price of oil could easily explode to a level that is four or five times higher than it is today, and that would essentially be the equivalent of slamming a baseball bat into the knees of the global economy.

The times that we are living in are about to become a whole lot more serious, but most Americans are not even paying attention to these absolutely critical global events.

In fact, even the mainstream media seems to believe that the new allegations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh are more important.

That is because they don’t understand what is really happening.

Trust me, keep a close eye on the Middle East, because things are about to start breaking loose there in a major way.

Roger Simon is also calling for Trump to punish the Iranian Mullahs severely. He even compared the drone strike to Pearl Harbor. This is getting serious.



Onward and upward,
airforce

Trump Says That The Military Response To The Attack On Saudi Arabia Will Be “Proportionate”

In other words, if it is ultimately determined that Iran was behind the attack on Saudi oil production facilities, we should probably expect the U.S. to hit similar facilities in Iran in return

By Michael Snyder | End of The American Dream Tuesday, September 17, 2019

Trump administration officials are telling reporters and that there is no doubt that the attack on the oil production facilities in Saudi Arabia originated from Iranian soil, although Trump himself is being less dogmatic in his public statements. It appears that Trump wants all of the evidence to come in before making a final decision about what to do, but clearly he is leaning toward military action against Iran. And when we hit Iran, there is a very high probability that they will hit back. In fact, the Iranians have already stated unequivocally that they will defend themselves. So as I discussed yesterday, we are potentially facing a scenario that could ultimately lead to World War 3.

It is true that Trump did tell reporters on Monday that he does not want war, but war may be coming anyway. If the evidence that he is shown clearly demonstrates that the attack on Saudi Arabia came from Iran, President Trump is going to feel forced to respond militarily.

Trump has indicated that he will have all the evidence that he needs to make a final decision very soon, and when a reporter asked Trump if a military response to the attack on Saudi Arabia would be “proportionate”, Trump responded affirmatively…

‘I think we just want to find out the final numbers and see – You look at a vector, and you look at – there are lots of different things we can look at,’ Trump told DailyMail.com as he left the White House for New Mexico. ‘And we’ll know for certain over the next pretty short period of time.’

Asked if he would order military action if he is sure who was behind the attack, Trump said: ‘Then we’re going to decide.’

When a reporter asked if the response would be proportionate, Trump responded: ‘I would say yes.’

In other words, if it is ultimately determined that Iran was behind the attack on Saudi oil production facilities, we should probably expect the U.S. to hit similar facilities in Iran in return.
Infowars Life Survival Shield X-2 is back and available for you to purchase! Buy it now!

Such an attack could spark a much broader conflict, and it could easily set off a chain of events that nobody will be able to stop.

Even though the Houthi rebels in Yemen have publicly taken responsibility for the attack in Saudi Arabia, at this point virtually everyone is coming to the conclusion that Iran did it.

For example, this is what the Saudi-led military coalition in Yemen is saying…

The Saudi-led military coalition battling Yemen’s Houthi movement said on Monday that the attack on Saudi Arabian oil plants was carried out with Iranian weapons and was not launched from Yemen according to preliminary findings.

Coalition spokesman Colonel Turki al-Malki said that an investigation into Saturday’s strikes, which had been claimed by the Iran-aligned Houthi group, was still going on to determine the launch location.

And a “senior Trump administration official” has told ABC News that the U.S. has solid evidence that the Iranians “launched nearly a dozen cruise missiles and over 20 drones from its territory”…

Iran launched nearly a dozen cruise missiles and over 20 drones from its territory in the attack on a key Saudi oil facility Saturday, a senior Trump administration official told ABC News Sunday.

It is an extraordinary charge to make, that Iran used missiles and drones to attack its neighbor and rival Saudi Arabia, as the region teeters on the edge of high tensions.

In addition, CNN is reporting that an unnamed “U.S. official” has told them that the Trump administration “has assessed that the attack originated from inside Iran”…

The US has told at least one US ally in the Middle East, that they have intelligence showing that the launch was “likely” coming from staging grounds in Iran, but they have not shared that intelligence yet. “It is one thing to tell us, it is another thing to show us,” said a diplomat from the region.

A US official separately tells CNN that the US has assessed that the attack originated from inside Iran. The official spoke on condition of anonymity.

So it sounds like the decision has already been made.

And even President Trump himself is telling the press that it is looking like Iran is responsible…

A day after threatening an armed response over an attack on Saudi Arabian oil facilities, President Donald Trump said Monday that it looks as if Iran was responsible – but he doesn’t want war.

“Well, it’s looking that way,” Trump said when asked whether Iran is responsible for the missile and drone strikes this weekend on a major source of oil for the Saudis and the world. “As soon as we find out definitively, we’ll let you know. But it does look that way.”

I think that Trump is hesitant to actually use the military, and he definitely does not want to get the U.S. into yet another endless Middle East war.

But if the evidence shown to him indicates that Iran directly attacked Saudi oil production facilities, the pressure on him to do something will be immense.

At this point, even one of the top Democrats in the Senate is calling for a military response “if that’s what the intelligence supports”…

Sen. Christopher Coons (D-Del.) said Monday that the U.S. may need to use military force against Iran if intelligence reports determine Tehran was behind recent attacks on two Saudi oil refineries.

“This may well be the thing that calls for military action against Iran if that’s what the intelligence supports,” Coons said Monday on “Fox & Friends.”

As much as the Democrats like to attack Trump, most of them are simply not going to go against the intelligence community. And so if the intelligence ultimately indicates that Iran was responsible for the attack, most Democrats in Congress will end up supporting a military option.

In the end, it is so hard to predict what Trump will do when it comes time to make a final decision. Back in June, he called off a military strike against Iran at the last moment, and it is entirely possible that such a thing could happen again.

And as it stands right now, the Russians are clearly urging Trump not to pull the trigger…

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, asked about the U.S. statement, said: “We have a negative attitude towards rising tensions in the region and call for all countries in the region and outside of it to avoid any hasty steps or conclusions which may deepen destabilisation.”

In a separate statement on Monday, Russia’s foreign ministry said it believed that the exchange of strikes on civilian targets was “a direct consequence of the ongoing sharp military and political crisis in Yemen”.

In addition, the Chinese are warning that a “revenge attack” against Iran could cause the region to “spiral out of control”…

China has warned President Trump that he is being manipulated by warhawks into believing “conspiracy theories” that Tehran was behind the attack on Saudi oil facilities and that any “revenge attack” on Iran could cause the Middle East to “spiral out of control.”

The warning was contained in an editorial posted by the Global Times, which is widely recognized as a Communist Party mouthpiece.

The Russians and the Chinese both understand how close to World War 3 we potentially are, and they both desperately want to avoid such a scenario.

Unfortunately, we live at a time of wars and rumors of wars, and circumstances seem to be inexorably pulling the entire globe toward military conflict.

It certainly appears that Trump would like to avoid a war with Iran, but is there a clear way out at this point?

If the intelligence that he is presented with clearly indicates that Iran was responsible for the attack against Saudi Arabia, it is going to be exceedingly difficult for him to do nothing.

So it is quite likely that a “proportionate response” is coming, and that could set off a chain of events that nobody will be able to control.

Well, that's better than "regime change," I suppose. But a full-fledged war between Iran and Saudi Arabia is going to disrupt the oil markets for quite a while. And before we jump in to defend the Saudis, it might be a good idea to keep in mind that the Saudis aren't exactly good guys, either.

I doubt Trump will do it, but he should at least get congressional approval (or, better yet, a Declaration of War) before we launch any strikes. Let's get the folks in Congress on the record about where they stand, before we start shooting.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Trump To Send Troops to Middle East In Response to Attack on Saudi Oil Fields

In major escalation in Iran crisis, Trump announces plan to send US troops

By Infowars.com Friday, September 20, 2019

The Trump administration is sending U.S. troops to the Middle East in response to the attack on Saudi Arabia’s oil supply, Defense Secretary Mark Esper announced Friday at a press conference.

At the request of the Saudi kingdom and the United Arab Emirates, President Trump has ordered a “moderate deployment” of troops to the two nations as a “defensive” posture against Iran, who Esper blamed for the “escalation of violence” in the region, including the latest attack on Saudi Aramco allegedly carried out by Houthi rebels in Yemen.

“The president has approved the deployment of U.S. forces, which will be defensive in nature and primarily focused on air and missile defense,” Esper told reporters. “The United States does not seek conflict with Iran.”

Though few specific details were provided, the New York Times reports the deployment number would be “in the hundreds, not thousands.”

Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the precise number of American troops headed to the region had not been determined, but that it would be a “moderate deployment” in the hundreds, not thousands.

Additionally, military strikes are presently not on the table, as Trump wants to avoid stoking war, but they haven’t been ruled out in the final equation.

Although the administration is not ruling out military strikes, senior officials indicated that, for now, the president was content to remain within the parameters of defense, not offense. Pressed by reporters about whether the administration was still considering so-called kinetic action, or military strikes, Mr. Esper said, “That’s not where we are right now.”

Though Trump’s decision likely doesn’t go far enough for the military-industrial complex, they likely view this strategic move as a positive development for their long-terms plans to topple Iran, which was outlined by General Wesley Clark in 2007.

I suppose the question I have is, with all the stuff we sell them and give them, why do they need more of our help? I'm no fan of Iran, but the Saudis aren't exactly good guys, either. I see little reason to put American lives at risk just for the Saudis.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Remember that article about the backgound of 911? It's ALL about the petro-dollar.

Tonight Iran bragged that no one knows what they are truly capable of and that they were more than ready to take out any aggressor.

In a war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, I'll be rooting for both of them to lose. Iran is pretty good at bluster, though. Back in the 80's Iraq and Iran fought each other to pretty much a draw, despite both sides suffering casualties in Biblical numbers. Apparently they haven't learned their lesson.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Iran Vows Major War Even If U.S. Conducts ‘Limited Strikes’

Remarks come after Trump announced sending troops, military equipment to Saudi Arabia

By Zero Hedge Saturday, September 21, 2019

Just after on Friday Pentagon leaders presented Trump with numerous “military options” for a response to Iran following last week’s twin attacks on Saudi Aramco facilities, Iran has again put the US on notice that any “limited attack” will assuredly lead to major war.

The briefing on “options” for responding to Iran were followed by a late Friday Pentagon announcement that it is deploying US troops to Saudi Arabia as a “first step” which could be followed by additional “kinetic” moves down the road.

“As the President has made clear the United States does not seek conflict with Iran. That said we have many other military options available should they be necessary,” Defense Secretary Mark Esper said in the briefing.

Iran on Saturday responded to the move by again declaring any potential “limited” US attack on Iran would certainly lead to rapid escalation. The head of Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Major General Hossein Salami, said in remarks broadcast on state TV that no such limited strikes would actually remain ‘limited’.

Gen. Salami said:

“Be careful, a limited aggression will not remain limited. We will pursue any aggressor.”

Clearly understanding Trump’s deep reluctance to drag the United States into yet another costly Middle East quagmire, it appears the Iranians are telegraphing that if they can convince Washington that even a small, one-off strike on Iran could spark WW3, this could dissuade the US altogether from even limited, “kinetic” missions.

It’s likely the administration could be spit-balling the idea of missile strikes similar to Trump’s two instances of bombing Syrian government facilities — each confined to a single night, not more than hours long, but going no further in terms of expanding the scope of originally defined objectives.

It must also be remembered that over the past summer of ratcheting tanker wars, the IRGC’s Salami has repeatedly warned of capabilities to strike American bases and ships, including carriers, in the region.

“Iran’s reach is no more confined to within its borders,” Gen Salami said months ago.

“A guidance and control system capable of steering a ballistic missile to hit a mobile target is a miracle of technology which is possessed by maybe one or two countries (in the world),” he had explained at the time.

But it remains to be seen that if a US first were to be initiated whether the Iranians would actually respond. There’s little doubt, however, that even such a “limited” US missile attack would put American troops and assets stationed in the region in harm’s way.

Any potential Iranian response might even start on Saudi soil, where extra US troops are now being sent, according to the Pentagon plan.

Iran is overextended in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. They're ill-equipped for an all-out war. Video from Strategy Talk, about forty minutes.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Amnesty International says 106 protesters have been killed in Iran. If these reports are accurate, that estimate could be very low.



Onward and upward,
airforce