Iran/US Tensions #6/9/19

Reports on current military activity
User avatar
Ben D
.
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 11:22 pm
Location: Australia

Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:22 pm

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo blamed Iran for attacks on two foreign tankers transiting through the Gulf of Oman, escalating the tensions between the Trump Administration and Tehran.

It was not immediately clear who was responsible for Thursday’s attacks. Pompeo said that intelligence reviewed by U.S. officials demonstrated Iran’s culpability, but he provided no evidence to support the assertion.

https://time.com/5606826/trump-blames-iran-no-evidence/

My B/S detector is pegging...

User avatar
Garniv
.
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 8:02 pm

Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:08 am

Silent wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:10 pm
#BREAKING: US has video and photo evidence that show an Iranian Navy vessel removing an unexploded mine attached to the hull of the Japanese-owned chemical tanker, "Kokura Corageous,” 4 US officials tell CNN- via @NatSecCNN

https://twitter.com/ELINTNews
I suppose two main reasons:
1. They removed mine to hide own traces.
2. They removed mine to investigate and determine it's manufacturer.
"We will rest! We'll hear angels, we'll see all sky in diamonds, we'll see how all earthly evil, all our sufferings drown in the mercy that will fill the whole world, and our life will become quiet, tender, sweet as a caress."

Travis The Dragon
Regular contributor
Posts: 375
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:35 pm

Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:23 am

What are the chances of this resulting in a military response?
“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”
Albert Einstein

User avatar
DEFCONWarningSystem
Director
Director
Posts: 5738
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 10:26 pm
Contact:

Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:31 am

Travis The Dragon wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:23 am
What are the chances of this resulting in a military response?
Low. Unless there is some proof that Iran was actually involved, the US isn't going to do anything beyond send more ships to the area.

JPod
.
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:48 am

Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:41 am

DEFCONWarningSystem wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:31 am
Travis The Dragon wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:23 am
What are the chances of this resulting in a military response?
Low. Unless there is some proof that Iran was actually involved, the US isn't going to do anything beyond send more ships to the area.
Well, speaking of evidence, https://twitter.com/ELINTNews/status/11 ... 4015418370

expat42451
.
Posts: 60
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:11 am

Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:44 am

https://gcaptain.com/tanker-attacks-in- ... oil-fears/

pretty reputable website. What is interesting is the owners of the Kokuka Courageous said the ship was hit twice. Given the nature of tank vessels, one wonders if the second explosion might have been the result of the heated cargo in adjacent tanks and a fume explosion as a result of the initial attack. Either way this is the first place I have read the ship was struck twice.

Regards

rudemarine
Regular contributor
Posts: 600
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 5:48 pm

Fri Jun 14, 2019 2:08 am

RiffRaff wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 7:52 pm
I would like to point out that this scenario is not too far off the plot of "Countdown to Looking Glass."
Pretty big difference. Iran would be closing the straight and demanding payment for passage and Russia backing the move with nuclear weapons. Back when that movie was made, Russia wasn't an oil exporter like it is today so It made some sense.

Today's events are straight out of the Iranians playbook. Terrorize the fuel shipping industry and get them to lean on Trump so he will back off. This was also an insult to Japan. The IRC likely did this on their own. Iran thinks it can sit back and pull this crap without being punished. They forgot the 80s.. History repeats itself, however post 9/11 Iran should know better.

User avatar
Ben D
.
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 11:22 pm
Location: Australia

Fri Jun 14, 2019 5:04 am

9 Jun 2019 The Associated Press The USS Abraham Lincoln , with its contingent of Navy destroyers and cruisers and a fighting force of about 70 aircraft, is the centerpiece of the Pentagon's response to what it calls Iranian threats to attack U.S. forces or commercial shipping in the Persian Gulf region. In recent years, there has been no regular U.S. aircraft carrier presence in the Middle East.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/201 ... -iran.html

Me...It doesn't make sense that Iran would wait for the US carrier group to be in position, to then attack commercial shipping, unless of course they want to be destroyed. I don't really think Iran wants a war with the US, otoh, if the US or other entity wanted a pretext to attack Iran, it would be easy enough to create a faux Iran attack on commercial ships.

User avatar
Ben D
.
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 11:22 pm
Location: Australia

Fri Jun 14, 2019 7:12 am

The Japanese ship operator says sailors on board the Kokuka Courageous, one of the vessels attacked near the Strait of Hormuz, saw “flying objects” just before the attack, suggesting the tanker wasn’t damaged by mines.

That account contradicts what the U.S. military has said as it released a video it says shows Iranian forces removing an unexploded limpet mine from one of the two ships in the suspected attack.

https://nypost.com/2019/06/14/japanese- ... er-attack/

Hmmm....why am I not surprised stories don't jive...

Erecon

Fri Jun 14, 2019 9:47 am

Someone wants to sway the public world opinion by attacking those vessels, I cant see if its to bind Iran closer to some allies so they gonna sell out to them, or if it is in fact someone seeking the most of the world opinion to remove the threat.. ( and persuade Irans allies not to step in ) maybe its both.

Another theory could be that a third party wants to involve their enemys against each other, and profit from it. And thereafter emerge stronger to take certain areas that they claim is theirs.

Locked