There is something faintly ridiculous about the premise of this Op-Ed. We're not in a criminal court when we conduct international relations. There are not ten million potential suspects. Clear photographic evidence is what we had when we engaged in the military responses which were the Cuban missile crisis. There is no other country than Iran who has any interest in this activity, and Iran's motivation to disrupt, to make a demonstration of its potential for further disruption, is clear. We have pictures of their craft involved in removing an unexploded mine. Exactly how absurd do the authors of this Op-Ed wish to be, in postulating vague doubts and 'can you prove it?' defenses for Iran? (Maybe Putin didn't really authorize the assassination of those former Russian spies with whom he grew disenchanted? Is there any point to such hypothetical-grain-of-doubt inquiries?) It's one thing to check claims - it's another to throw up chaff and smoke, as these op-ed authors do, to obscure the obvious. We need to act in connection with our national interests, not play a charade as if we had to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt (a purely American standard of proof for courtrooms) to some international audience who have their minds already made up, and who bear no military responsibility for keeping the peace in any event.
8
A Saudi prince, perhaps?
19
And you don’t even have to go back as far as the Tonkin incident. Just look at the false flag claim of Saddam’s WMDs to finally understand that the US and the UK have been a serial liars on the world stage.
46
A very uninformative piece. Why were these ships, not American, supposed to have been attacked?
8
Gulf of Tonkin???? Try googling " Iraqi WMDS". Or "Nigeria Yellowcake". Or "British grad student WMD thesis". Believing WH intel is like believing in the tooth fairy. Too old for that.
46
The crew of one ship reported a flying object .. not a mine. And why would Iran attack a Japanese ship when the Japan Prime Minister was in Iran? .. The Israelis are probably behind this.
35
Thank you. This is more like what the front page article should have been. It is sad that this article is presented as "opinion," but the front page article lacking any investigation was "news." The NYT can do better.
27
Perhaps readers should google Operation Praying Mantis if they want to know what happened last time Iran mined the Gulf.
1
You know the British have confirmed it, right? You know Iran shot a missile at our drone, right?
6
Iran's enormous oil refinery could be destroyed in a few minutes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abadan_Refinery
1
This is probably just another Israeli "false flag" operation meant to goad us into war against Iran.
We caught Israel doing this during the waning days of the W Administration. See https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/01/13/false-flag/.
Rewind, repeat.
25
Let's start right here--What is trumps track record for telling the truth? Then, what is his record for intelligently dealing with ANYTHING?
38
America has been using this sort of excuse to go to war for much longer than the Gulf of Tonkin. Remember the Maine? False accusations of attacks on ships have been part and parcel of American propaganda for well over a century. Think hard before accepting this. The only one to gain from it seem to be the war hawks in America. It's hard to see the advantage from such an attack from the Iranian side.
30
Bolton is a war monger. Trump hasn't a clue except electoral politics. Should the Democrats actually find convincing evidence that threatens Trump's presidency, we will be at war in an instant. Nothing galvanizes support for the president than a war. Check George W Bush's ratings after 9/11.
For now, it is Bolton genning up a causus belli for attacking Iran. Perhaps it's a bad cop - good cop negotiating strategy.
Still, it is very possible of Iran to damage oil shipping. "If Iran cannot ship oil, no one can".
8
Not a surprise that the Iranians would want to remove a mine attached to a vessel in their waters to forestall further explosions and fires.
11
What’s equally or more important than the video is the question of motive. I haven't heard anyone give a good reason for Iran to take this action. I don’t think I’m naive about Iran’s role in Mideast politics, but it seems just really stupid for Iran to attack ships for no apparent reason. And for Iran to attack them in a way that is bound to bring suspicion on itself.
The one rather lame explanation I heard is that Iran is flexing its muscle—showing the world its potential power to disrupt commence. If that was their intent, they’ve come off looking less than powerful, they’ve drawn attention to their possible involvement, and they’ve attacked a ship from a country with which they are not in conflict and whose Prime Minister was in Iran at the time of the attack.
Not much adds up there. Can someone explain why Iran would do this?
31
Having demonstrably lied more than 8,000 times in two years, trump has less than zero credibility on any subject.
18
But Bret Stephens says our military never lies! My niggling question is: but what if Bret Stephens does?
15
It's Europe's call.
Clearly, Iranian mullahs are counting on Europe to support their position against U.S. sanctions through aggression. The U.S. should simply be there to pick up the pieces of these burning tankers until the U.N. or Europe decide to defend the Strait of Hormuz or back Iran's aggression.
It's there call.
5
Trump's rush to blame Iran is instructive. An honest appraisal would have taken the time to nail down details, evidence, so that such a serious accusation would be taken...seriously? Nobody takes the president seriously any more, and it's not just the 10,000 lies. Trump threats are now known through much experience to often be empty. Remember "shut down the Mexico border", or "5 % tariffs on Monday", or "fire and fury" to current bromance partner Kim Jun Un? This is not to say that Trump won't randomly follow through on a threat, nothing like a cliff hanger to juice up the "ratings" on the presidency he apparently thinks is a reality show.
17
This is when the non stop Trump lies must be taken into account. I have serious doubts Iran was involved. This looks a recreation of the fabricated Gulf of Tonkin incident, used to get us into Vietnam - and the resulting horror show.
15
And then you have to consider motive. What would Iran gain? Iran is a rational actor. They have their interests and their regime wants to stay in power. By engaging in these attacks both would be put further at risk. Iran is NOT some Isis like cult.
13
Even IF Iran was connected to damaging 2 oil tankers whose owner disputes the US claim, is the sole response available to the world “war with Iran” or “regime change” with the inevitable consequence of great loss of life (and much more)? How stupid are we? How dumb the US press for not even asking the question (so far as I can tell)?
Does the “Dominoe Theory” now apply to somebody else’s oil tankers who weren’t even sunk?
11
This is where Trump’s chickens come home to roost and it is both frustrating and dangerous. He lies so often he can’t ever be believed. So where does this leave us?
17
Well of course we can be sure that there was a real attack and that Iran is responsible for it. Our President says so and we have all learned that we can depend on the veracity of his administration and believe everything that the President says.
13
Circle of lies!
Nothing of this event makes sense.
The US, Iran, Saudia Arabia, U.A.E, Israel all traffic in lies! Our distrust is valid. Which state player is the best at misinformation?
Why did Pompeo rush to put forth the video and accuse Iran within hours of the event?
A skilled diplomat would understand the need to speak with all parties first and prepare for the expected denials. A credible administration would have said that we have this evidence but we have other evidence to explore - crew reports of projectiles, bomb fragments, explosion patterns, etc. A skilled investigator understands the consequences of the accusation before they are made.
The ineptitude of this administration leads me to believe that it was set up by someone working in the wisdom vacuum of Trump with a sinister secondary agenda.
What state player for the past 10 years has used a systematic approach to seed discord, distrust, and destroy the confidence in the West? What country will benefit from higher oil prices? What country will benefit from being the seen as the stable peace maker? I see Putin as the master of lies and the best chess player on the board.
I fear he has pawns in Washington, Iran, Syria. Pawns don't understand they are about to be strategically sacrificed.
11
The important part:
“... we can say for certain this is not the slam-dunk evidence that some would like to claim it is.“
11
We know who’s really itching for a fight here. The Saudis, the UAE and Israel all come immediately to mind, and they all have the wherewithal to pull off such a ploy.
8
Limpet mines are designed to be attached beneath the waterline of a ship by divers. The idea is to attach the mine in the harbor, then blow a hole in the hull later and sink the ship. This is usually done with a timer, although it is not hard to imagine one could be set off by a radio signal.
To blow a hole above the waterline, you'd need access to the side of the ship. Also, it would be there, visible to anyone who looks, until it explodes. Since this has been done before, you'd think they'd place guards in the harbor, and would look at the hull before leaving. Sailors are notoriously cautious when it comes to something that might damage their ships.
That seems a bit unlikely. I smell a rat.
21
The video certainly seems to show an Iranian patrol boat and crew removing an object from the tanker's hull. Would someone step up with a plausible legitimate reason for such action in international waters? No humanitarian motive springs to mind.
2
Its a story long told, about a country long gone:
JFK dispatched former Secretary of State Dean Acheson to show the CIA's surveillance photos of the Cuban missiles to French President Charles de Gaulle. I don't need to see pictures of the weapons of mass destruction, de Gaulle replied: "The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me."
Or as the quibble goes:
“Gen. DeGaulle’s response was that he needed no such evidence . . . after all, President Kennedy obviously would not have sent a man of Mr. Acheson’s eminence to give him misinformation.” ...Sherman Kent, CIA, who was in the room with them.
How many in the world (or even our own country) would now take the word of Bolton or Pompeo?
Or Trump?
23
Can we be sure that the videos have not been doctored or cooked in some way?
4
Was America and it's British, Israeli and Saudi allies behind decades of covert and overt regime existential war against Iran?
Was Iran behind the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks?
Was America behind the invasion and occupation of Iraq ?
Was Iran ever armed with nuclear weapons?
5
The theory expressed that the Saudis are the perpetrators of a "false flag" operation has some sense to it. The Saudis get a 3-fer:
1)Ingratiate and assuage The Donald (whose been on their case a bit recently e.g. no new weapons sale).
2)Strike a blow to regional rival by agreeing to blame on Iran.
3) Pick up a nice piece of change trading on oil price increase.
7
I’m grateful for an independent analysis. But important questions remain about the video. How was it taken (drone or satellite?)? If drone, who took it (Israel?)? What footage exists beyond what has been shown to us (where did the boat come from and return to?)?
10
Believing is seeing. "That's all folks."
1
Will history refer to this incident as the "Gulf of Trumpkin"?
10
It may be a false assumption, but one would think that within the various branches of the U.S. intelligence community there is a combined ability to analyze what happened in the Gulf of Oman on Thursday and to determine precisely the actors in the attacks on the Kokuka Courageous and Front Altair.
There has been no such definitive identification provided, and that fact, coupled with the crew of the Kokuka reporting an attack by a flying object, is telling.
It seems highly unlikely, in spite of the anti-Iran bias of President Trump, that the entire U.S. intelligence apparatus is conspiring to hide the truth.
It is very likely that some analysts have determined that operatives of a third country with motives to impugn Iran were responsible, but heads of the agencies are awaiting irrefutable confirmation because of the international politics.
The likely suspects, acting alone or in concert, all have more to gain than Iran from a relatively minor attack on two oil tankers. They are Netanyahu’s Israeli hardliners, Saudi Arabia’s Prince Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud, and leader of the United Arab Emirates, Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan.
The silence of the top U.S. spies, either to rule in or rule out these other interested parties, is significant. It is similar to the significance Sherlock Holmes attached to the clue of the dog who didn’t bark in “The Silver Blaze.”
7
WHO made this video? WHO was there at the right time at the right place?
11
After a preemptive war based on lies with Iraq, we need to pay attention to this president who has almost 11,000 recorded lies since becoming president.
6
I’m thinking more like “Remember the Maine!”
2
There is an old saying...Truth is the first casualty of war.
In this age of fake news and manufactured videos it is truly impossible to be sure about almost anything.
If people want peace there will be peace. If people want war there will be war.
The living things on this planet should expel the pesky animals known as Human Being!
4
“Be it thy course to busy giddy minds with foreign quarrels!”
(W. Shakespeare, King Henry IV part 2)
Now I’m absolutely sure our current President NEVER read these lines, or anything the Bard wrote. Nevertheless the less, William knew what he was talking about.
Distract the minds of people in the USA with foreign entanglements, and they will quickly forget the abomination that Trump et. al. is making of our country at home.
Oh how he would LOVE to start an “argument” at home about whether we should take military action against Iran. Trump the lead story in the media everyday! For the narcissist it doesn’t get any better. The NY Times writing editorial after editorial on military action, as will all media. The table discussion at the dinner table in every home in America will be about Iran ....another Iraq? Another Vietnam?
All the while the Mitch McConnells of this world will be working their domestic inequities under the Radar while “giddy minds” are distracted by Iran!
I love you William!
8
Will history refer to this incident as the "Gulf of Trumpkin"?
2
When it come to the Middle East, the land of proxy conflicts, "nothing is as it appears".
4
Dissapointing article -- no insight any deeper than the general news reports. Nothing additional. The U.S. record is very sustpect: not just Fulf of Tonkin, but the WMD in Iraq of Bush/Cheney and even "Remember the Maine" of the previous century. Wish this guy had examined Iran data.
3
Nope, there's no evidence. The tRump "administration" can't help stepping on their own...uh...toes, in their useless efforts to start another war in the middle east. Japan won't stand with you, either. So, yet another ally bites the dust. You people just aren't smart enough to do this stuff, evil enough, but not smart enough.
4
Certainly true that the evidence presented regarding the tanker attacks (or sabotage) does not meet the standards for a criminal conviction.
However, it's clearly better than the evidence purporting to "prove" a Trumpian obstruction of justice -- and to proceed with impeachment.
Therefore, it seems to me the left in general, and the collective NYTimes in particular, manipulate burden of proof to fit predetermined political conclusions.
A great newspaper that continually raises its subscription rates on the stated grounds of preserving independent journalism owes its readers more than this.
3
Since the presumptive attacks occurred outside the Straits of Hormuz and in the Gulf of Oman, what are the prospects that they were made by Iranian-supported Yemenis, i.e, Shi'a Houthis, not necessarily with the consent/cooperation of Iran's IRGC? The U.S. seems to hold the view that the Houthis are a subsidiary of the IRGC because Iranian elements have been arming the Houthis, but what might be the evidence of this, beyond the allegations of the Saudis and Americans who share Saudi views?
Pompeo specifically cites a level of coordination and technology used that rule out proxy agents.
1
Actually, who attacked the vessels is pretty much beside the point.
If you look back at the history of World War II, you will see that FDR used punishing economic pressure to virtually force Japan to attack us. He decided that war with Japan was necessary and did everything he could short of launching his own military attack to force us into war.
Trump is doing pretty much the same thing. He will keep the pressure up until Iran is left with the choice of economic collapse or military confrontation. We may not fire the first shot but the war will be inevitable and we will have caused it.
8
What you are seeing, imo, is a false flag scenario by the US. Not saying they attacked the tankers (certainly plausible when looking at US history on the subject) but are using the attacks to their advantage despite Iran most likely not being the ones who did so.. The shale "miracle" in the US is petering out and supplies are becoming scarce as time marches on. Not hard to connect the dots. What is very concerning is that this could shape up to be a black swan event if the US attacks Iran. All bets are off then.
3
Sorry, America is not going to roll over for another war in the Middle East....Pompeo and Bolton can do the Saudi dance like Trump does, but frankly, Iran had nothing to win and a lot to lose by doing this.....My trust of the Saudi claims the first time were very shaky. They have a clear agenda and it is about removing competition in the world oil market.
Let's all take a pause and remember who broke the word of our country with Iran.
We have already proven that we cannot stand behind American honor and prior agreements. You break your word do not expect respect for future claims.
11
It appears that the current administration has self-generated such distrust based upon its history of outright lies and distortions-- that citizens have to fall back on YouTube and Facebook to do their own intelligence assessments for international events.
4
'gashti class' is just persian for patrol boats...the word gasht means patrol - even the use of this name by people who don't speak the language gives it a more sinister air...no hype!
8
1. John Bolton is on record saying, "our goal should be regime change in Iran". He has been saying this for years. 2. China is Iran's biggest oil customer, and Iran (and the middle east) plays a big role in China's Belt and Road initiative. A war in Iran would be catastrophic for the whole region (the whole world, in fact...), but would serve the US ultimate purpose of further 'containing China'. Simply put, what we have here is a rogue empire (the United States) once again provoking conflict in an effort to preserve hegemony.
11
What has to be remembered about the Gulf on Tonkin was that the North Vietnamese activity which led to the "incident" was provoked by American warships invading North Vietnamese waters previously to conduct offensive missions and surveillance against North Vietnamese positions. Whatever really did happen, it happened as a direct result of American provocation.
That is the material similarity here. There was no hint of a possibility of military action while Obama was president, a treaty had been signed and Iran was being compliant. Everything that has happened between the United States and Iran since Trump came to power has been part of a unilateral and completely unlawful campaign of provocation by Trump for no other reason than to satisfy his deeply perverse personal obsession with undoing Obama's legacy.
Trump doesn't care at all about Iran or what they do or don't do in the region - all Trump cares about is himself - so any analysis or commentary which features what Iran has or has not done completely misses the point. This is about one thing only - what Trump wants to do and why he wants to do it. The clue is to assume that whatever he is saying is a lie.
Trump says he doesn't want war with Iran. The only reasonable conclusion is that he does want a war with Iran and that he is planning a war with Iran. I think he wants a war to win a second term - which is exactly what he said Obama would do in 2011. Trump is planning a war and that's all you need to know what's next.
26
@Colin McKerlie
You've hit the nail on the head. Trump. Pompeo, Bolton and that crew are all liars. How anyone with the slightest bit of common sense would believe anything this gang of liars say is beyond me.
5
This is the same social media that stole our election, phoney’s everything and empowers white supremacists? So now it’s our savior and trusted best friend? Wow, now I’m really confused.
5
excellent article!!! (for me at least)
3
Ok, so if not Iran, then who?
2
The president lies about everything, and since the GOP love to state that science is fake, we shouldn't vaccinate children against measles no matter what the science tells you.
this grainy video looks fake and the drum beat for war is sucking out all of the oxygen in the room. Well Mr. President since you enjoy putting children in cages and security is always being threatened remember the border scenario. Funny how your friends put bids in for building the mythical magic wall.. Then lets do what Donald Rumsfeld stated 18 years ago you go to the war with the army you have in place. He never did anything but put our children in harms way. He didn't even sign the letters to the family of the fallen soldiers but used a seal.
Send the Trumps boys and Jared off to war since they have been making plenty of money off of America. Still waiting for the peace plan for the middle east that Jared has been working on. Whose children die there?
Your not sending my sons nor anyone else's children to die for another made up fake news from the White House. Trump the author of fake news is suppose to make us think that anything we see on TV is real. You reap what you sow.
How do I know this video didn't come from Russia, after all he said he would take anything from foreign dictators. After all George Stephanopous was a wise guy not a journalist, per Trump I cant believe anything from the con man in charge especially a grainy video.
8
Nothing more than this season’s boilerplate international “crisis”. 8 months ago it was the diabolical “caravan”.
I say it’s about time we send in “Space Force”...on the double!
3
Ahh, yes. Bibi and MBS continue their plot to send more Americans to die in the Middle East. Simply ask yourself, who benefits from an American attack on Iran? Israel has pounded the table for years urging us to get involved. And the Saudis with their Sunni orthodoxy cannot stand the Shiite Iranians. Pentagon, as usual, is looking for another war to fight. Enough already. US out of Middle East. 50 Years from now we will probably learn that Mossad did the deed from a secret base set up by MBS in Saudi. We Americans are simple stooges in this event.
11
ask yourself, who benefits?
7
Defense attorney: “Did you see the defendant bite the victim’s ear off?”
Witness: “No”
Defense attorney: “Then why are you so certain the defendant is guilty?”
Witness: “I saw him spit it out.”
1
In support of Jack Robinson, who writes
"There are several very good alternatives to blaming Iran. The first, and most obvious is a false flag operation by Saudi Arabia and/or Israel. Both have sought to force the US to war with Iran for a long time. Both have the capability af carrying it out and both have long histories of similar operations."
Add to this that Mr. Netanyahu after failing to form a new government faces the 17 September 2019 Knesset election as well as criminal investigation
Nothing is more effective to unite the population behind him than a war in the Gulf
7
One wonders if the Saudis, Israelis or Americans (CIA) got a Gashti boat, loaded it with (way too many) crewmen, dressed them up in what would appear to be Iranian style garb, motored out to these two ship, attached a mine knowing they would be filmed and tracked by various intelligence agencies...
Wouldn't take much to do that...
9
Cry-wolf Bolton has been a busy little warmonger. The only one who's falling for this fabrication is Trump.
5
This is the 2019 version of a vial of anthrax.
1
The Tonkin Gulf incident was not a false flag incident, but error by the NSA and misinformation by McNamara. Specifically, the NSA misinterpreted the 4th August signals intelligence to substantiate a second attack on USS Maddox (after 2nd August) and presented the White House with only confirmatory evidence, leaving out the disconfirmatory; and McNamara misled Congress by denying that the US Navy had been supporting South Vietnamese attacks on North Vietnamese harbors, for which the actually occurring North Vietnamese attack on the 2nd was retaliation. False flag attack, by contrast, means an attack carried out by the forces that appear to be the victim.
See: https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2008/february/truth-about-tonkin
3
Conundrum? Who do we believe? Donald Trump????? or Iran?? What a world!
2
Curious how Trump is "sure" about Iranians, and sceptical about Russians!
11
Do you think the Iranian leaders that preach "death to America" mean it?
4
Dick Cheney lied to us to get us into a war. Oliver North ran a shadow government under Reagan's nose. And to be bipartisan, Bill Clinton, in a farcical incident compared to either of those Republicans, lied and lied again about his White House affair.
Is it any wonder that many of us, weary of all this lying since the Gulf of Tonkin and Watergate, are not ready to believe today's pathological liar, blow-hard, and tantrum-throwing brat? Not when he has war-mongers like John Bolton and professional xenophobes like Stephen Miller whispering in his otherwise closed ears.
This is going to end in a war few Americans want.
8
@Peak Oiler are you really comparing an affair with two war incidents based on lies? This is by far the most lopsided comparison and “what-about-ism” I’ve seen in years.
2
@Peak Oiler
At least Clinton's lies didn't lead to the cusp of a war. His lies were merely to conceal a sexual affair with an intern about the same age as his daughter. Shameful as this might have been it certainly could not lead to war.
2
Why would anyone believe anything this administration says? They have proven themselves to be willing and capable liars.
Maybe the Iranians attached the ships, maybe not. Fake news Mister President?
4
Tonkin? yes, similar but, what about most recent criminal Bush's USA conspiration, a monstrous lie, to invade and destroy Iraq?! I won't say Iran ayatollahs are saints but Trump and his gang are the most creepy liers around, trying to distract public opinion with a new foe and maybe gayly make war to increase the mess in that area.
7
The investigative collective Bellingcat. Is that an off shoot of Palo Alto University? Some say it was a drone attack. Some say "Navy Frog Men" or It was the Iranian army. To think they were bragging about surprise drones which may be a fabricated story or fake news. Still, I'll go with a drone attack to prove my gullibility.
What can I say? Should we go to war or not? No. Let the Arab League and Israel solve their own problems. Europe needs Middle Eastern oil let them fight for it.
But seriously Bellingcat. When I thought I heard everything.
1
Does this remind anyone else of Colin Powell claiming that weapons of mass destruciton resided in a trailer in Iraq?
4
Vaporize one Iranian Naval base and POOF no more attack boats. If Carter had done this way back then,.the mid-East would be calm now.
Good ol' No Stones Jimmy.
This is really not analogous to the Gulf of Tonkin, where there was no attack. Ships are burning. Who does the Times think did this?
2
What the heck would a mine be doing stuck to a hull way above water?
Another simple question: why are we on one side of a religious conflict between two different sects of the Muslim religion that started in 634 AD? Can anyone explain that? Anyone...?
9
its ironic that US intelligence estimates are fine for threatening war with Iran, but when it comes to russian interference in our elections then they are no good. you just have to wonder what is going through the heads of the feeble minded idiots running and starring in the show.
11
This is solid reporting but with a obvious bias. If you project the Gulf of Tonkin in your investigation that is exactly what you will find. Sometimes, things are actually what they seem. Look at Trump, he commits fraud, obstruction, and spies for the Russians all in broad daylight --- people just don't want to believe their eyes.
No, you went in with bias and confirmed your jaundiced hypothesis.
As for denials, that is so typical in this world: it confuses the enemy. Later, some Iranian Republican Guard leader will be richly rewarded by their government for this successful attack.
1
"Thanks to the internet and the range of publicly available information"
What an incredibly naive statement. I guess if it's trending with the twits on twitter that lends credibility to what ever the conclusion is.
In a way this reminds me of the Boston Marathon Bombing. Almost immediately after the event authorities released video and still images to the public. Almost immediately credit threads popped up with "investigators" claiming to know clues. Several people were identified by these "investigators" which resulted in the expected public attacks and shaming.
And there really was an attack on the Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin. It's just that there was never a second attack against the US as alleged by the Johnson Administration.
1
A few observations that cast doubt in my mind:
1. I seem to recall an expression along the lines of: The three most important elements of an investigation are motive, motive, and motive. There seems to be no motive for Iran to have done this (quite the contrary, in fact).
2. I watched the enhanced video many times and could see no object on the ship. My guess is that the object is purportedly being removed at the beginning of the video by the person on the bow of the boat. If so, they are blocking the view of the object. Why not show the boat approaching the ship to get a better view of the object?
3. Who else, if anyone, owns Gashti class boats, or similar?
4. The sea is not pancake flat, yet the person on the bow of the boat shows no sign of unsteadiness.
5. There are something like 10,000 reasons to not believe anything that comes out of donald trump’s pie-hole.
6
Come on with this lousy video! How is it I can see what brand of beer is in my recycle bucket when Google took a shot of my house - but this video is as bad as a 1980's VCR security cam in a bodega in the Bronx?!
When is the US military gonna start using image capturing technology that delivers better images, instead of this nonsense? I can attach a Go-Pro to a cheap drone and get better imagery then this! Even at night!
Why do we even accept this sort of "evidence"? Its insulting.
If there is better imagery - and with what US taxpayers are paying into the military budget, there better be - I want to see it! I want to see the food crumbs in these guys beards!
Not this maybe, might be a bunch of SEALS dressed like locals, captured on Radio Shack junk equipment.
A picture of a ship on fire is ONLY evidence of a ship on fire. Video imagery of a smaller craft sidling up to what could be one of the damaged ships, but is the very definition of blurry, is not evidence of the nefarious act claimed by the US military.
I demand better evidence from our Government! I - we,US taxpayers military members and their families - deserve better evidence then this 1950's circa imagery.
15
Is it possible that Iran is responsible for the damage to the tankers in the Gulf of Oman —yes. On the other hand is it probable that Trump and his people are not being truthful —yes.
In 1966, when I joined the military, I believed what politicians and the president said; after all they were honest god fearing people. Flash forward to 2019 and years of being lied to by presidents, members of congress and the courts —I am confident neither Thomas nor Kavanaugh would take a FBI lie detector test.
That said, the daily assault on the truth by Trump, his relatives and the likes of Sarah Huckabee Sanders causes me and many others not to believe anything that comes out of the White House or an appointed executive branch member. How sad is that!
14
.. it just reminds me of the made up reasons for the devastating Irak war with the alleged weapons of mass destruction. America has lost its credibility.
4
Evidence?
America needs evidence to justify bombing, invading and destroying other countries now?
Crikey!
5
Have the Iranians yet shared the information they gained from the removal of the limpet mine on the side of the ship?
1
Our government doesn't have much credibility when it comes to war. The Trump administration has zero credibility about anything, and we're supposed to believe them about this incident. In my opinion this is a "wag the dog" moment to take our attention away from what's going on in Washington.
5
After all the lies about yellowcake and WMD's in Iraq and hundreds of thousands dead, we are supposed to believe this? There were no consequences of that barbaric invasion and the mayhem that followed, and there will be none if we invade Iran. Who is going to stop us?
6
This video, as shown here, is ridiculous. You can't see anything that has any meaning. If this is the kind of garbage Trump is putting out as evidence, it is only evidence of his, and Pompeo's, and Bolton's, warmongering.
8
One thing is certain.
All sides are lying.
2
All the sides are lying.
What makes Mr. Higgigns eligible to share in US evidence gainst Iran? It is clear that he knows nothing.
What is absolutely true, is that trump NEVER tells the truth, and like everything else that comes out of his fact-free administration, this too is fake news.
5
Even if it was the Iranians, Trump by his history of thousands of lies has helped them. We cannot believe anything that comes from the White House.
4
Gosh, obviously the Iranian Revolutionary Guards were trying to deliver some pizzas as a good will gesture! Let's give those brave and loving lads the benefit of the doubt, right?
Right...
1
In the battle for credibility, Trump the Compulsive Liar and Porky "anything the boss wants" Pompeo have less than zero in their column. Sorry - maybe if they occasionally spoke the truth it would be different. But come on... I'm certainly not going to take their word for anything when a more reasonable explanation is "anything to distract from obstruction of justice and impeachment". Hey Mr. Bone Spur - you sending your kid?
4
Spend a little time with some information. The author strangely confirms the presence of Iranians removing a device apparently in a carefree manner. Which would only occur if inevitably knew what they the device was. The IRGCN May be playing their own game. Https://www.oni.navy.mil/Portals/12/Intel%20agencies/iran/Iran%20022217SP.pdf
1
Anyone else think it’s weird that we haven’t heard from the intel agencies? We heard from the Secretary of State but there are no intel capabilities in his department and he didn’t try to present evidence or reasoning.
Where is the Director if intelligence? Where is SecDef? Where is Bolton?
Was Pompeo going rogue?
2
Let's use the methodoloy of Cui
Bono: who benefits?
The US Secretary of State and National Security Advisor are itching for a pretext to attack Iran. Bolton has not backed down from his NYTimes oped entitled "Bomb Iran." So these war mongers need a provocation, real or fabricated, to justify military action. People who want to kill will not hesitate to deceive.
Iran has every reason not to give the US such pretext. The last thing it wants is to be bombed.
It's that simple.
And there is NO logic to the idea that they would choose to provoke worldwide condemnation and US military action by planting bombs on a Japanese oil tanker on the very day the Japanese leader was in Tehran where Iran's leaders were trying to persuuade them to ignore US sanctions and buy Iranian oil.
In short, there is no logic by which this would have been done by Iran and every logic why it was a false flag arranged by the three nations which are itching for a war on Iran: the US, Saudia Arabia, and Israel.
There is no rhyme, reason, or benefit for Iran to attack ships; and there is every reason and motive for the US to orchestrate another false flag operation to create a pretext for the war on Iran it wants.
And now the owner of the Japanese ship is claimin the US account is false, that the ship was attacked not by limpit bombs (which would have been underwater) but by "flying objects."
I, a lifelong atheist, pray to God the MSM, the public, and the Congress will not buy this deception.
7
Wow, these comments are funny. I'm sure glad this generation wasn't around when we had to storm Normandy. We did have to storm the beaches at Normandy, you know. If anything like that is needed again we are cooked. The last thing we will see before being stormed ourselves is Rachel Maddox in the middle of a rambling explanation......like we saw when the TV streamed Clinton places concession call to Trump. Wake up people...or is it Woke up people.
The area is full of conflicts. On the North side of the water is Iran, where a large majority are Shia Muslims, but Kurdish and other Sunni minorities, Jews (as long as they do not openly support Israel), and Christians are tolerated. It is a limited democracy where the elected president, parliament, mayors, etc. have some powers, but Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader has the final say. On the South side of the water from northwest to southeast is a sliver of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, and the UAE, and Oman. Power in Saudi Arabia is in the hands of a Royal Family with the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman the public face. There is a very large Shia minority in Saudi Arabia and he has executed many Shia leaders. The Sunni royals and sheiks in the UAE also persecute the large Shia minorities in the Emirates.
1. The US withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal and escalated sanctions on Iran. The UK, Russia, China, France, and Germany remained in the Iran nuclear deal, but the US is saying it will sanction companies from those countries that continue to do business with Iran.
2. Iran may have attacked tankers as revenge for increased sanctions. But would they have picked Japanese tankers while in talks with Japan?
3. The UAE also had an interest in attacking the tankers if Iran is blamed.
4. The US is lying when it blames a car bomb attack in Afghanistan on Iran when the Taliban has taken credit. A Big Lie which belongs up there with blaming 9/11 on Saddam Hussein.
2
Will the government in Iran produce the alleged limpet mine taken off the tanker? Any explanation from them yet?
1
Iran is a nuisance. If it was behind the attacks take them out. the world will be safer.
It was Mossad. They have the capability to create the scene. (Also, why would you return to remove the mine? If it didn't detonate it's not like no one could figure out what caused the other explosions and damage. The mine didn't have the seal of Iran on it, did ). The Iranians military can't be that stupid as to plant an underwater mine so high above the water line as to be a spectacle, but not sink the ship. What would be the purpose. A threat? Stop shipping oil? Not going to happen. It would only bring more military presence to the gulf. Why?
It was the Mossad creating the basis for a war by the US against Iran without Israeli involvement. How's that for a conspiracy theory?
2
The quick way Pompeo sprinted up to the podium to denounce Iran, followed by the president's "We are convinced this was Iran" makes me believe that this was a setup.
Others could have done the damage, from Saudi Arabia or the UAE to the US it self. I'm deadly serious.
This is the gang that can't shoot straight so to speak. In an age of "deep fake" videos, what's to prevent the State Department from concocting evidence?
This administration wantsw war, period. Their hatred of Iran is deep seated--for the president it's rooted in hatred for President Obama, for Bolton, a long-seated personal animus.
They're also being goaded (paid?) by the president's opaque ties with the Saudis, the UAE, and Israel, and his financial interests.
The tanker explosions make a great pretext for war, seen by the only one who can actually declare it as a way out of his current scandals and debts to the Saudis.
It also gives him a way, prior to 2020, to wrap himself in the flag while sending young men and women to engage in another "stupid war" lauched on false pretenses.
7
As reported, “... Yukata Katada, the president of the operator of the Kokuka Courageous, [said] that the crew had reported that the ship was attacked by a “flying object.” Mr. Katada added, “I do not think there was a time bomb or an object attached to the side of the ship.””
Mr Katada’s characterization of what the crew said is hearsay (possibly several layers of hearsay) and Katada’s opinion of what type(s) of objects hit or contacted the ship is not based on personal observation, nor any apparent military expertise.
How much weight should this “evidence” be given?
2
One thing is certain, Trump lies all the time. Everyone around him lies all the time. His cabinet officials lie all the time. His Supreme Court and judicial appointees lied all the time. All Congressional Republicans lie all the time. The Republican propaganda network, Fox News, lies all the time. In the end, nothing any of them say can be believed. Welcome to post-truth Trumpland, the successor to George Bush WMD land, another lie.
8
It is hard to fathom that the Iranians would be so stupid as to use this moment to go an make some show of force or exert violent control of anything related to oil.
Obviously, the US has a very vocal in fighting Iran (I say US, I mean hawkish Republicans.)
What is being missed is that the party with the motive and the opportunity is Russia. They are the greatest benefactors of conflict in the Middle East since their economy is entirely dependent upon the price of oil and natural gas.
Could Russia have found one of this lame little Iranian gunboats? Those things look like a bass fisherman's dream--drives fast and has dual DShKs for shooting road signs!
Importantly, Trump is more than willing to carry Putin's water on any issue. In this case, the moral mouse in the White House thinks that he is getting the excuse that he needs to pull that presidential trigger.
For the first time in my lifetime, the public seems to be wisely skeptical.
1
For some reason we, all of a sudden , have to believe man and an administration who have lied continuously and without regard to anyone in this country's ability to see through their stupid lies. In addition we are being asked to believe that this situation was brought about by Iranian duplicity when, in fact it has been manufactured by this administration which seems to be dead set on killing more American soldiers so that trump can win a presidency that he so desperately wants to win. The whole thing stinks and so does trump!
5
Note to Press: the President in't required to consult or seek your advice before he takes military action. He is not required to share his proof with you.
No one in the U.S., including the Times, seems to have noticed that Trump's embargo on Iran, in defiance of intenational legality, was an act of war.
3
We need an objective third party to investigate the evidence, otherwise we're heading towards the territory where Iraq had WMD.
2
But hopefully the UN Security Council learned its lesson with Bush/Cheney/Powell the last time and won't be gullible now.
2
The Media prefers to deal in politically correct diversion instead of simple and clear truths which in this case is " Because President Trump has taken lying and falsehoods to levels never before seen so nothing he or his administration says can be believed " .
Not even video and eye witnesses can be trusted . Just another reason his harms for us and the World must be excised before his calamities will be permanent and irreversible .
1
I don’t think weekend boaters would know how to remove a Limpet mine from a ship’s hull. How many nations in the area stock that weapon?
Was the mine a dud? How did it get attached so high above the waterline?
It is possible that the ship was the victim of multiple attacks. The mine is a dud, so the attacking country launches torpedoes. Then they recover the dud mine to cover their tracks.
Absolutely! For plausible deniability, it was probably done by Saudi intelligence services.
2
Once again we are hamstrung by our President's lack of credibility, and worse, it's actually more believable that he or his merry band of pranksters actually did try a black flag operation here. Conspiracy theories are easily brought to mind because of the low level of people POTUS has filled his cabinet and advisory postions with.
This is a perfect ploy, as I'm sure many other posters are pointing out, that would draw attention away from the gross mismanagement and legal problems faced by this White House, and satisfy Bolton's runaway foriegn aggression tendencies. POTUS has already proven ad infinitum that he's willing to go to great lengths to protect his precious image over and above anything or anyone else, including the lives of our military troops. He's a proven sociopath, so let's see how his base rallies to him once soldiers start dying in order to distract from his criminal activities here at home.
1
I think we all know it was John Bolton, this was a major turning point.
1
Who in their right mind would believe anything the Trump Administration says about anything.
This is probably some Saudi production and the Trump Crime Family is putting on one of their usual "puppet shows" as they sell us out for cash.
4
Bolton, Pompeo, Trump,...do we want these people to have the power to launch a war with Iran ? They lack even the faintest hint of credibility. Trump would love to start a war to change the front page. Democrats must step to the plate up and demand hard core proof of the highly suspect self-serving Trumpian claims. Oh, and wjhat about those Saudis and Kushner's pal MBS. Any links there?
6
Same stuff; different day: manufacture evidence to bring the people along, denounce the peacemakers as traitors, and 'beat the street' as the economy limps towards recession. Arguably the greatest threat to world peace, the U.S. continues its Middle East war-mining to prop-up petrodollars denominated in U.S. dollars and hedge against declining oil prices. Destabilize the region for control and weapon sales, declare that U.S. interests are at stake,
mobilize to get that black-spicket gushing again, and top off your tank for more bombs going into Yemen and elsewhere. Rinse and repeat. Yes: given the technology, there ought to be much clearer evidence before the U.S. starts jackbooting others, and yes, given the technology, how easy it is to fudge video footage. Wolfowitz/Cheney and Pompeo/Bolton...all cut from the same cloth; all princes of the pump primers, and all would-be patriots. If all goes as planned, about the same time Powell lowers interest rates, we should be ramped-up for another full-on conflict in the Middle East. And the beat goes on.......
6
Trump has ordered the US Navy to provoke a war.
2
Bolton says so, Trump says so, Pompeo says so. Most people in the US simply don't believe this trio of serial liars.
4
Who to believe between Trump that lies every single day and the Iranian regime that promised kept adhering to the nuclear pact they sign with Obama is easy to answer: the Iranians
4
Who shot that video? Why would they have shot it and published it? Why does it look like a video of a police brutality incident from seven years ago? From the angle it must have been from an adjacent small boat — the film crew?
4
Why should we believe anything the Trump administration has to say? They just lie, and we certainly know that. Moreover, Trump, in his deranged little mind, probably thinks that a war would divert attention away from his failing, and criminal, administration.
3
Remember the Maine?
1
Who in the world would trust Donald Trump's word at a time like this?
2
Oh, those republicans. They sure like to spill blood. Just not their own.
2
OK. I’m stupid and missing a piece of the puzzle evident to everybody else, but will someone please humor me and answer the question that this article and every other one I have read about the attacks never addresses: who took the video allegedly showing the Iranian boat moving a mine from the ship? What other unnamed ship happened to be in the area and lingered long enough for some human being to film the video? How did CENTCOM gain possession of the video?
Why do journalists not even bother to raise these questions?.
7
I do not believe anything said by this Administration because Trump is an inveterate liar.
4
Threw issues stand out arguing against Iranian responsibility for the attack on the Japanese tankers. First, Japan’s prime minister was visiting Iran at the time. It makes zero sense for Iran to commit an act of war then. Second, Saudi Arabia, the Trump regime, and Israel’s leader Netanyahu want regime change in Iran. Third, Trump and Netanyahu want to boost their popularity for political reasons.
These factors point to a false flag operation. Iran didn’t do it.
3
Why would Iran remove a mine from a tanker it was attacking? I haven't read anything that says whether this was before the tanker was damaged and set on fire, or after. If before, how was the ship damaged? If after, was the mine a dud? Were there two mines?
There may be something our intelligence agencies aren't telling us, but, so far, it doesn't make a lot of sense, either way. Given the statements of the crew, the evidence is pretty scarce. However, all it took to get us neck deep in Vietnam was two un-identified blips on a radar screen.
1
Gulf of Tonkin ( 1964) and Maine ( Havana Harbor 1898 ) were incidents which DIRECTLY involved US Naval vessels. This does not. In conventional war terms, the US does not have casus belli.
2
The only "evidence" provided by the Trump administration was a video showing an Iranian speedboat REMOVING, not placing, a limpet mine on a Japanese tanker and rescuing Japanese crew members -- all this while Prime Minister Abe was visiting Tehran. Given Trump's credibility problem, I'd like to see or hear a briefing from our intelligence chiefs as to why Iran would want to start a war with us, or who may be trying to goad us into a war with Iran, like maybe the Saudis?
5
Trump legally and politically cannot go to war with Iran on account of a sea mine in international waters exploding on a a Panamanian flagged vessel. It was NOT an attack on a US Naval ship. So in this present case, US would need to get United Nations to buy into Iran being an aggressor. In the meantime, it ratchets ups the ‘lead up to conflict’ because the recent sea mine events gives Trump a baseline excuse to send the US Navy to the Persian Gulf ( which is like Iran sending ships to the Gulf of Mexico ). Then, he and the hawks wait for the next incident which could involve actual US sailors. If anything directly happens to a US ship near Iran, the fingers will point rightly or wrongly towards Iran. And then , it is on.
6
We know that the Houthi rebels in Yemen have been using long-range drones with explosives to attack Saudi oil facilities. Given that one of the ship captains said that the attack came from the air, it seems likely that the Houthis are now using their drones to attack shipping as well as static facilities. This doesn’t get Iran completely off the hook, as they support the Houthis.
1
Explain how the Houthis got within range to do this ? Yemen is 750 miles across the desert from the coastline. Unlikely the Houthis which do not have a navy, they are a rebel group the desert, sailed around Oman and then sent their drone off to attack a Japanese cargo or a Taiwanese cargo. For what purpose ?
3
North Vietnam admitted to the first attack at Tonkin Gulf to a group of visiting scholars and others, George Herring among them. Please correct your error.
Thank you for this import analysis. I remember the Gulf of Tonkin "incident" all too well, and I was in the Near East at the time! The basic approach should be a critical look at what can REALLY be confirmed, and the useful question - who benefits? It is hard to believe that Iran would attack the cargo ship of a country as that country's Prime Minister was meeting with major Iranian officials. That does not benefit Iran at all, but does benefit other players who would like the US to do their dirty business for them (we are so helpful to the Saudis in Yemen aren't we?). Look at the map - who benefits?
13
Hopefully this isn’t the beginning of the international crisis that so many people have been saying could be the real problem of having Trump in the White House.
11
After 10000 lies in two and a half years, I am at a point that if Trump or any member of his cabinet state that they have proof that the earth is a globe, I would rush out and join the Flat Earth Society
13
This is a little odd. Who else would have an incentive to do this? “If the impossible is disproved, the improbable is what remains.” S. Holmes
Trump seems adverse to war, but his foriegn policy team seems hungry for it. In all probability, the attacks were either Iranian or Saudi sponsored. But by whom and why, particularly with the Iranians, is uncertain. Their denial may suggest in wasnt the state itself but a powerful faction of the state, such as the Revolutionary Gaurd, that the state is fearful or unable to act against. The reason is most probably the sanctions the U.S. imposed that have caused Iran great harm. "We have met the enemy and he is us." We need to accept some blame or be tripped into a war that, whoever wins, will kill and maim thousands.
4
The first thing I thought of when I heard/read about these attacks were; Saudi Arabia and Israel were behind them both not Iran. Both of those countries would benefit from a war by the US against Iran and I don't trust either of them or put anything past either one of them. They are both playing the current administration and the war hawk faction of the republican party.
24
The U. S. has a credibility problem with this incident. With the current administration having broken a treaty with Iran (which Iran appeared to be abiding by), then pressuring other nations who signed the treaty to back out, then threatening war with Iran, anyone paying attention would have trouble believing this story. John Bolton has never met a war he doesn't like.
10
I'm pretty sure it was aliens disguised as Iranians, what other explanation could there possibly be. Iran has denied it, so it must be true they had no role.
2
Donald Trump, on January 20, 2017: "From this day forward, it will only be, America First." So, why should we care about an attack on a Japanese ship? It's Japan's problem and Trump has said Japan can buy a lot of U.S. weapons to protect itself.
What? When he said "America First," he meant that America will always be the first country to start a war, no matter who is president? Oh, now I get it.
4
If I recall when Bush was up for a second term, did the administration say something to the effect, if there is a war, people would vote for the incumbent and as we know Bush wanted to be a wartime president. Does the looser in the White House want the same thing? Given the grim reaper is running the Senate it would not surprise me if history repeats itself.
4
The “Iranian” patrol boat looks more like a party boat with a dozen men standing on the deck. You just don’t go disable an explosive device with a dozen men milling around. It looks more like a drunken group of friends who went up to the tanker to paint graffiti on the side.
Is this the best we can do for a smoking gun?
3
Any investigation should consider the Feb 12 Tweet by Israeli PM Netanyahu in anticipation of the US sponsored anti-Iran conference in Warsaw. The conference was attended by Pence, Pompeo, and Kushner, high ranking nag officials from Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Oman as well as lower ranking officials from other states. This is what Netanyahu tweeted:
“This is an open meeting with representatives of leading Arab countries, that are sitting down together with Israel in order to advance the common interest of war with Iran.”
This is much more useful information than the grainy video footage Pompeo now wants us to watch.
10
Here we go again. The lies about the Gulf of Tonkin incident cost us 50,000 lives. Now Trump thinks he alone is a world's expert on military action. I will pray for a heart attack.
9
Well, at least we can rest easy, secure in the knowledge that we can trust the President to get the facts and do the right thing. He's got our back.
groan...
1
The Trump administration has a long way to go to prove what they say. They have no credibility and lots of reasons to claim Iran as the perpetrator. Surely by now the Iranians know they would be found out. They could however successfully sow confusion by calling "false flag". But some of us are calling "false flag" too. We don't believe Trump (who lies and has cried wolf, the sky is falling!).
This is the perfect time for a beleaguered president to start warring. Then, of course, we cannot change horses in 2020. Only we don't fall for this anymore (hopefully).
Fool some of the people (40%) all of the time, some of the people some of the time, but not the majority of the people all of the time, or at all.
4
@Potter
Don't be too sure about that. Americans are easily and willingly fooled if you blindfold them with the flag.
6
I simply do not trust the Trump administration and feel that it is highly likely that this is a scam possibly initiated by Iran's enemies especially Saudi Arabia or Israel to stir up hostilities and war for their own benefit.
2
Iranians are intelligent people, so I find it hard to believe they would they have used an incendiary that could be traced to them in the event it failed to detonate.
2
It's come to the point where the trump administration will go to war on the basis of suspect evidence but Congress will not remove a clearly dangerous president on the basis of the much more solid evidence presented in the Mueller report.
15
However, valuable the quest for certitude here, questions do not begin and end with a determination of Iran's responsibility for these attacks. Even were Iran determined responsible, we would still need to ask the meaning, in context, of the attacks. Amid the on-going U.S. push toward war, starting at least with Trump's unilateral withdrawal from the multilateral nuclear agreement to which U.S. allies and Iran are still by and large adhering, we could not call these attacks unprovoked, out of the blue, acts of war, as if Iran alone were belligerently and suicidally choosing a direct, unambiguous course of war. We would have to consider the fair possibility that these attacks, in which ships were hit above water and not sunk, were demonstration attacks, intended to deter the U.S. by signaling what Iran might be yet be capable of in a full military conflict with the most powerful military force on the planet. It is by no means clear that the appropriate response is to launch or escalate toward full war. Neither war nor the aftermath of any such war are unambiguous U.S. "wins," as both the falsely justified war with Iraq and the endless war in Afghanistan demonstrate. The fact remains that all solutions are, in the end, political and global; they can be neither confined nor won on any circumscribed "kinetic" battlefield. And the murkiest questions of all are not responsibility for these attacks nor Iran's intentions, but the larger purposes and goals of the Trump administration.
8
"In the escalating conflict between the United States and Iran we have to work on all the information available, not just what one side presents."
Yes. Especially our side.
6
Question. How does a mine become attached many feet above the water line?
9
Don't count on our intelligence agencies. Trump has rendered the good people that work there a joke since they are being used to bolster Trump's re election chances and not serving the American public with the truth.
6
The only thing Trumps is good at is manufacturing a crisis.
12
I do not believe the evidence provided by the Trump administration. Given the Trump administration's tendency to lie, every announcement made by it should be doubted. However that is besides the point.
It isn't the US's responsibility to protect Saudi Arabian trade. If an attack is made on a Saudi shipment it is their problem, not ours. We are not the Saudi's client state and someone needs to remind Trump, Pompeo and Bolton of that fact.
16
spot on.💯
1
The crew reports a flying object.
That right there doesn't fit. There's plenty to be suspicious of here, I'm not ready to find guilt nor innocence for Iran - it's very unknown. It is wonderful that today it is much harder to make a fake claim that cannot be investigated.
6
There are often conflicting and misleading reports issued during the immediate aftermath of an incident like this. Explosions are confusing. But even if it was a flying object, who launched it?
3
Also, it seems like the attack was carefully engineered to avoid civilian casualties. It seems to me that is much better accomplished by a well placed explosive than a missile.
1
This is a stellar piece.
How different and how much better to be alive in the "information age."
Weapons of Mass Destruction, deep fakes, have taught us to doubt the story.
Was a time, once, when our only source of information was a triad of big news networks.
If someone "trustworthy" said it, it had to be true.
Then we found out our own Secretary of State, speaking at the United Nations was either lying or misinformed.
Then, it didn't matter--we were off to war.
As William Randolph Hearst told his correspondent in Havana when the reporter told him the photo's of the destroyed USS Maine was not likely the work of the Cubans, "You give me the photos; I'll give you the war."
10
Personally I would love it if it turned out to be Saudi Arabia, forcing us to reevaluate our alliance with the MBS regime. But I will not rearrange facts to fit my worldview. Unless it is conclusively proved otherwise, I accept that Iran did this. That doesn't give us a right to go to war.
2
Crying wolf too many times immediately sets up doubts, besides the fact at least two Administrations in my lifetime made up incidents and evidence to carry out armed conflicts (Johnson in Vietnam and Bush-2 in Iraq). President Trump lies in his sleep and his con artist tactics of fooling people into believing they have seen something they have not can be traced back to the 1980’s. Having Secretary of State Pompeo then blame Iran for all kinds of incidents, including the tankers, they had never been blamed before (in some cases, other groups had taken credit) leads me to be very skeptical about the integrity of this Administration.
Iran has been a bad actor toward the US, US citizens, it’s own citizens, and it’s neighbors since the 1970’s. One cannot definitely conclude Iran had nothing to do with the oil tankers. Logic, though, begs the suggestion that if Iran meant to blow up these tankers, they would more likely attempt to explode an unexploded mine attached to one of the tankers than take the time to remove it.
9
Donald Trump posted seven times from 2011 to 2013 that he believed President Obama would create a war with Iran in order to get reelected. Here's one:
"Don't let Obama play the Iran card in order to start a war in order to get elected--be careful Republicans!"
It's become a common refrain that things Trump warned about before and during the election are things he was simply projecting about himself. At a minimum, his repeated insistence shows he clearly believes a president with mediocre approval ratings can win reelection through war. It certainly worked for George W. Bush. And Trump is willing to do anything to be reelected: just this week he stated in no uncertain terms that he would welcome foreign collusion to help him, an unconscionable thing for an American president to say.
After all, Trump has strong motivations to stay in office at any cost. There's a significant possibility that as a private citizen, Trump will face a variety of New York State charges.
He also blunts the effect of possible impeachment proceedings; how unpatriotic to impeach the president in a time of war, he'll say, and many will agree.
35
When you have made it your life‘s work to lie daily, as a citizen it is the responsible thing to do to not trust and believe what is being said. We have been lied to before by administrations that are much more trustworthy than this one. Additionally, clearly this administration has an agenda, that is, to stay in power at all costs. And how might one stay in power without popular vote? That is to find a way to start a conflict that will supposedly unite the country behind the leader. I do not trust one thing that this administration says… Ever. As a result I tend to believe what is being said here, and not believe the Bret Stephens theory.
23
Trump is too weak to start a war, especially considering it's now already a Gulf of Tonkin conspiracy instead of a Russian conspiracy. I guess I don't mind Trump's hands tied, cause I certainly don't want any confrontation, but if the fighting starts it's going to get weird hearing the media play the part of Tokyo Rose.
1
The American people are skeptical with good reason. How many wars will we support, how many deaths will we allow, inspired by the same types of fake accounts? We're the nation that cried wolf.
More troubling still, we have an incompetent as Commander in Chief. The species and the planet can't withstand the types of wars the modern world brings and the pressure it puts on what remains of our ecosystem. How has humanity chosen such fools to lead us?
15
I agree. Most likely the culprit is Liechtenstein.
4
James... or trumps CIA arm or US mercenaries. Remember Bolton is involved in this. He never me a war he did not like including Iraq.
2
I think it was the same crisis actors who Alex Jones said staged all of the mass shootings. The shadowy cabal!
2
I am wondering if John Bolton is Donald Trumps equivalent of George W. Bush's Dick Cheney? Do we now have the non existent WMD and non existent yellow cake to make nuclear bombs.
Excuses for war with made up "evidence", trust us we know better than anyone else that we are right.
I would like a lot of verification from our allies. I still hope they are still our allies, we need them. We now, since Trump, need them more than ever. But why would they go out of their way for US after being treated so very badly by Trump and his minions.
6
This happened when the PM of Japan was visiting Iran for peace negotiations. The US/Israel/ Saudi Arabia/ UAE all have a vested interest in overthrowing Iran, they have said so many times and do not want negotiations. Iran is hated because they stand up against terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, are friends with Palestine and have large oil reserves. Iran should be our natural ally and the Saudis our enemy for their support of Al Qaeda and the spread of Wahhabism.
It is odd how the video is very blurry, that is being used for evidence. There were US ships nearby yet why didn’t they try to take the mine off the ship. This boat in the video, how do we know it is from Iran and if it was, wasn’t it a good thing for them to take off an explosive device that could have caused more damage. What were our ships doing nearby and why didn’t they try to help and take off the mine. If the ship was hit by a projectile as said by the ship owners not a mine, where were our ship positioned before the blast - many questions.
16
Given its self-inflicted track record, if the Trump admin makes a claim, the safest bet is to assume the opposite is true.
8
My opinion is that the damage was caused by limpet mines. They are small but powerful, and a diver can strap on two of them. They are easily programmed and could have been attached anywhere from their ports to the detonation sight. A submarine capable of launching service delivery vehicles carrying a diver could have done it. What did Iran have to gain by doing it especially during Abe's visit? Iran doesn't want a war-they just hope Trump is voted out of office. There are officials in governments including our own who would love to see an Iran-US war. Our country has a tragic habit of getting into unnecessary and unjustifiable wars.
4
Now the credibility rating does matter.
Too bad Trump defaulted on that. But bankruptcy, neither financially nor morally, didn't stop Trump ever. Despite spoiling any justified cause, without any international support, Bolton's puppet, Mohammed bin Salman's useful muppet will go to war.
5
Just thinking about costs here. Can we blame it on a country in closer proximity to us and with a smaller army?
2
Minor but important point: the author is incorrect when he describes the Gulf of Tonkin incident as a “false flag” operation. A false flag operation denotes an action perpetrated by one actor, but disguised to appear as if it had been perpetrated by another actor. In the case of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, this would mean the U.S. had attacked its own ships, but no one argues that is what occurred. On the contrary, the consensus is that the attacks in the Gulf of Tonkin were overstated by the U.S. government in order to justify increased military action.
The lack of proper usage of the term “false flag” by someone presenting himself as an expert should give pause regarding the extent of his knowledge in this area.
7
Yes! I made a similar argument somewhere else.
Short answer: yes. Long answer: definitely.
This incident occurred while the Japanese PM was visiting Iran. It would make no sense that Iran would attack a Japanese tanker (especially if it was loaded with Iranian oil - was it?). I despise and mistrust both Bolton and Pompeo. They have advocated regime change in Iran. Have they now found the enabler they've waited for in this hapless, incompetent president?
5
@jwarren891, Pearl Harbor was attacked while Japanese diplomats were in Washington.
On a conspiracy note:
The Iranians don't have a motive and I do not believe they are irrational.
The"evidence" is highly suspect.
To his defense, I do not believe Trump wants a war with Iran but his henchmen, Pompeo and Bolton do. As do the Saudi's and the Israeli's.
Voilà, a recipe for a conspiracy and a war in the making.
5
"The video shows only that the Iranians chose to remove it for an as yet unknown reason."
Does it? Or does it show a boat of a similar type went there?
Could a wealthy country make a replica of an Iranian boat? Could a country like Saudi Arabia afford to build replicas of every weapon in the Iranian arsenal?
Or are Iranian Gashti boats so technologically sophisticated that no other country on the planet could replicate one?
3
Please remember Occam's razor rather than speculating to fit what you want to have happened.
1
Tonkin, Lusitania...the list goes on. When will we learn and stop allowing venal politicians and the entrenched corporate interests to drag us into war that does nothing but serve their interests? We don’t need the oil. Step back.
3
This is the problem with lying and those that tell the lies. They are not trustworthy and without absolute proof (which we haven't been given) millions will not believe. Why should we? Trump is the liar. And completely untrustworthy.
7
For 875 days, we have been hearing a daily torrent of lies coming from Trump, and those who align themselves with this administration.
We have no reason to believe our country’s leaders would be telling us the truth now.
6
Iran has denied removing anything from the ship yet we know that was their speedboat, easily verified, unless another entity has access and ability to place a copy within 30 miles of the Iranian coast. So we know they lied about that.
If Iran can produce evidence that the item they removed was placed by another entity, they will. If they keep quiet, then they did it and removed the evidence. Another day or two will tell. But the Trump haters are just gonna hate...
2
I hate Trump but I still think Iran did it until there is credible evidence otherwise.
1
@Twaeker
Anyone could have copied that speedboat, the video is not all that clear to be certain who removed the mine.
2
These waters are between the United Arab Emirates and Iran. Like Saudi Arabia, the UAE is under autocratic Sunni rule and brutally oppresses its Shia minority. In the politics of the region it would be to their advantage to carry out the attack as long as Iran was blamed. Iran might also do it as revenge against increased sanctions, but it seems odd that they would pick Japanese tankers at the same time they are in high level talks with Japan.
3
I do not believe for a nano-second that Iran is guilty of these attacks. By the same token, I no longer believe the provocative prevarications of my own government anymore at any time. It lies through its teeth with a prideful arrogance that should put its citizens to abject shame.
Iran has no credible motivation to stage military attacks against the assets of American allies. Several other nations, however, have every motivation to goad the United States into attacking Iran militarily. Saudi Arabia and Israel come immediately to mind.
When a regime, consumed by its own entrenched mendacity, is no longer believed by its own citizens, it becomes impossible to rally the nation in the face of any really dangerous crisis. The prospect should chill our blood below the freezing point.
19
When a President lies as nakedly and frequently as Donald Trump, nothing he or his administration can claim any credibility. Every single thing they claim now needs to be thoroughly fact-check. While trying to pump himself up, Trump has seriously diminished the power of the Presidency.
5
A couple strange things about this "limpet mine retrieval"...
I'd expect the boat to come in fast, grab the mine, and take off faster, but they took their time. One of the guys stood on the bow as if enjoying the sun - had the boat accelerated quickly to get away, he'd get thrown into the boat or water. This looked staged - I was waiting for the guy to wave to the camera.
Other thing is this retrieval occurred some time after the fire - everyone knew about it. US forces are in the area (supposedly) watching for attacks. It looks like the video was taken from a helicopter(?), but in any case, why didn't a US plane, helicopter, or drone track this boat to see where it went? It wasn't like a submarine that could dive and disappear. We could even have attacked it without much chance for backlash given the circumstances. A CNN headline reads "Iranians fired missile at US drone prior to tanker attack, US official says" so we were in the area. Doing nothing but taping the retrieval makes our military look extremely weak.
6
Is it even an American tanker? Owned and operated by the American government?
If not, what's all the uproar about from the Isolationist America-first crowd in and out of the White House?
4
@Voting Observer
The uproar is that they want a war with Iran, all that oil to go over there and.... liberate.
1
We were on a path to peace with the Iranian government before the President and his troupe of clowns decided to reverse everything, because, well, Obama. He also hired back malicious warmongers like Bolton, who had already dragged us into entanglements costing countless innocent lives, and who by all rights should have remained in political exile permanently.
Did the Iranians attack? No idea, but I sure wouldn't trust anything this administration says about it.
7
Trump and his people have spent years lying. Now they suddenly want everyone to believe they’re telling the truth this one time. They’re have zero credibility. Birtherism, the largest inauguration crowd ever, the Iranians did it. What would anyone believe them?
4
Two problems here. 1) The nature of the attacks are not clear as the report from the Japanese don't match the reports from Pompeo. 2) The Trump administration doesn't have much, if any, credibility at this point.
2
Liars lie. Trump once said that he tells the truth when he wants to, which clearly not often.
1
Perhaps the most interesting thing about the supposed removal of a limpet mine by Iran's Revolutionary Guard forces is that the UAV filming the event did not follow the 'Iranian' vessel. If this was a genuine Iranian action, the US 'evidence' would have been more substantial if imaging showed the true course of the 'Iranian' forces. Not convinced, Donald, pull the other leg please.
4
Now that is an excellent point.
1
Who benefits from attacking these carriers? It isn't Iran, at least not that I can see. Which US intelligence agency (there are many) decided it was Iran? Bush created an agency specifically to prove Iraq was responsible for 9/11, not the best way to get accurate info. With trump wanting his own little war and John Bolton, warmonger extraordinaire, having trumps ear the preponderance of the circumstantial evidence is against the trump administrations view and says "Gulf of Tonkin". We need to tread carefully here and congressional republicans need to find their spines and be willing to stand up with democrats ( who found their spines in Jan. of 2017) against a foolish, needless, costly, war that will only benefit those selling war machines.
3
The paragraph third from the end of the article concludes with the following assertion: "The video shows only that the Iranians chose to remove it for an as yet unknown reason." Just because the craft showed Iranian markings and the seamen appeared to be in Revolutionary Guard attire, how do we know removal was accomplished by Iranians? I would not put it past Saudia Arabia, Israel or even the Americans to perform a charade to foment war in the region.
2
Can you believe what the President of the United States says? Other voices than Trump and those in his administration who have proven unreliable need to weigh in. The trouble is this president and his minions have so tainted the veracity of the office of the presidency there is no-one who can fill that role. Who speaks for America? Donald Trump. Don't start a shooting war based on what comes out of his mouth. The President has left a long trail of wrong headed thinking behind him in his time.
3
“Considerable cynicism“? Or just healthy skepticism? Around the country there’s plenty of healthy skepticism about anything and everything uttered by #45. I only hope that NYT, CNN, WSJ, Washington Post et al manage to withhold deference to the current regime, by which I mean the executive branch of the US government.
2
True skepticism means applying your skepticism equally to every possibility, not just the ones you want to be false. That's where the skepticism of conspiracy theorists usually fails.
2
Why would the come and remove the mine? Wouldn't it be akin to going back for a grenade you threw? It's not special technology.
There are other explanations such as removing it so it doesn't damage the vessel further. Isn't that a possibility?
5
Yes, this! Not only Gulf of Tonkin, but go all the way back to the USS Maine in San Juan Harbor. The US government has a long history of faking "attacks" to give themselves excuses to go to war.
So how and when was the mine placed there?
5
Herein lies the problem with the Trump administration:
When you lie repeatedly about everything, even when the truth would be easier, you erode the public trust.
When you denigrate our own intelligence agencies, on foreign soil while standing next to the leader of an adversary, you erode the public trust.
When you constantly assail American institutions, you erode the public trust.
It is entirely possible that Iran is responsible for this incident. But I have no confidence, based on the source of these claims, the Trump administration.
6
Who knew that lying on a daily basis could damage one's credibility?
6
Yes call me a cynic. Why wouldn’t I be in the age of Trump? It’s called cause and effect.
3
If this incident was conducted by Iran, this must have put Abe, on an errand of Mr. Trump, in a humiliating position if he was conscious. If done by the US, he was sycophantic enough to conceal any indignation. If yet done by others, he must have known his incapacity. I really hope this was committed by insecure terrorists if just to keep Abe sane.
In is not necessary to look for analogies 55 years ago. We all remember the false intelligence before the US invasion of Iraq. One of the memorable images is Colin Powel at the Un holding up bags of purported anthrax and showing satellite images of mobile chemical weapons labs.
Then there was George W's endless rant about weapons of mass destruction. Europe was not convinced then except for Bushes puppy Blair who may not have been convinced but was eager to go along.
3
Iran has the most to lose in a shooting war, the least likely to obtain success, and is therefore the least likely party to instigate hostile actions that would provide a cassus belli.
Check the big winners in a war scenario for suspects.
4
This piece does not tell us anything that anyone with an internet connection or Twitter account does not already know.
Former State Secretary Powell was snookered by 'W' into presenting phony evidence about Iraq. Powell was actually a person of integrity. Most of those working today for Rump, (esp. Pompeo), would gladly concoct phony evidence. To the infamous 'WMDs' and Gulf of Tonkin pretexts, let's not forget to add the infamous Battleship Maine pretext: the U.S. has been at this invasion game for ever. (Oops, I almost forgot about the Alamo).
4
I’m having some problems with the comparison of two B&W photos and the color picture of the Kokula Courageous. The shape of the windows on the side of the ship appears different compared with the B&W and color picture of the ship. The black object on the side of the ship in the color photo could easily have been “photoshopped”. I’ve been through the Gulf of Tonkin deception once in my lifetime.
2
The structure of this article strikes me as very odd. The author's research is just basic journalism - working to determine what really happened. Yet, it reads like the label on my jar of jam that states "This product packaged under sanitary conditions." The act of stating it begs the question - was this indeed packaged under sanitary conditions?
"In the escalating conflict between the United States and Iran we have to work on all the information available, not just what one side presents."
First of all, the "escalating conflict" is a trumped up escalation between the liar-in-chief and Iran that the US got dragged into. The effect may be the same but the source of the "conflict" has to be made clear. Just think about the "conflict" with N Korea that was later on claimed to have magically disappeared. That conflict and its "resolution" was the construct of the dotard.
Second, given the note by the dotard that Abe was supposed to have handed to Iran it is quite reassuring that the dotard probably had no intention of "escalating" it. For all the claim of a good deal maker and chest pounding it turns out the note was to beg for a meeting with the sworn enemy. This thought seems to have been confirmed, at least for now, by the lack of uncontrolled crazy tweeting by the dotard.
But the worst damage is really to the credibility of the US, a country that is not owned by the dotard after all. Even without "Gulf of Tonkin" three years of constant lying in public and public chest pounding with no follow up (not just the fire and fury bit but the tariff stuff as well) has got to carry its toll.
By the way will someone please point out to me if dotard needs the article "the" in front of it? Or has it by now become a proper noun reserved for the liar-in-chief so it needs no article by a capital instead? Three cheers for Kim.
2
I hope for those of us old enough to remember the "Gulf of Tonkin incident", hairs will raise on our necks and our voices will rise in protest. This was the beginning of something called the Vietnam Carnage. [The "incident", like Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, became a pretext for protracted war.]
The next pre-emptive war we launch may be our last!
1
Trump is juicing for a war to lubricate his 2020 re-election.
What better target to excite his electoral base than Iran, after withdrawing from an especially effective anti-nuclear deal fashioned by his nemesis: Obama.
USA Senate: be careful, very careful. Your White House resident has ulterior motives that are NOT in out best interest.
2
I will believe that Iran was behind the attacks when France, Germany, and possibly a U.N. investigation say so, just as I believed them when they insisted that Iraq had no W.M.D.'s.
5
Pure American propaganda ... The last time we accused Iran of mischief in the straits, we ended up shooting down a civilian Iranian airplane. Now we're at it again. Will our politicians ever learn?
4
Until better evidence and independent verification we can't believe a word from the war mongers Bolton and Pompeo; they've pushed Iran into a hard corner, wanting this.
(Don't they recall their Saint Reagan trading with Iran?)
Super-grainy videos are the easiest to manipulate.
Where's a location/date/time stamp?
3
"Just remember, what you are seeing and what you are reading is not what's happening."
— Donald Trump, to a VFW Convention in Kansas City
I believe even a sceptic like Eliot Higgins would agree, the world possesses irrefutable evidence that Trump, along with his administration of psychopathic toadies, will lie about anything and everything.
This has not and will not serve our nation well should a true crisis occur. We will continue to find ourselves without a whit of credibility and, alas, with even fewer friends.
3
We know Trump, Bolton, and Pompeo are likely to lie about virtually anything before breakfast—not to mention after breakfast— so relying on anything they might claim about this event is surely suspect.
If they had to send their children or grandchildren to the war they so desperately want— on general grounds of liking war or to try to distract Americans going into 2020 election—maybe they would rethink their rush to war.
But then again, perhaps if they wouldn’t care about others’ kids, maybe they can keep their own families out of a war they want to start, via a Bone Spur “out” just like the President.
In short, the war they want to start is okay for everyone except themselves and their sons/daughters or grandchildren.
2
THE CORRECT ANSWER IS That the explosive device that caused the damage was a Flying Limpet. Or is that a Limping Flyer? The moral is: Like it or Limpet.
1
Even is Iran did this, and even if Japan eventually raises a protest, the real question is do we really think that the US can mount a serious set of attacks on Iran? Do we think we can destroy their nuclear program (presumably dispersed and protected)?
And if we had any chance to keep many Iranians on our side -as many have been, do we not realize that we war would unite them, and keep the extremists ascendant?
War achieves little that we can control - as the Iraq war ought to have taught us.
Time to focus not only on what happened, but whether we can effect change.
6
"Thanks to the internet and the range of publicly available information, confirming or denying such an attack has become far easier since the 1960s."
Yes, but correspondingly, the truth has become less and less important, and it never really trumped nationalist fervor. We've seen lies about Vietnam, Central and South America, Iraq, and on and on. When has the American public demanded truth before committing itself to wars in other countries? All Trump needs is a rousing image like "weapons of mass destruction."
3
Is there anyone to forward such a piece to the US Congress?
The legislative branch of the American government MUST avoid another useless but costly and lengthy war engineered by some politicians, who do not care about horrible consequences for the brave American soldiers and the populations of the invaded country.
2
@renarapa...
"No more foreign wars."
Unless they try and see my taxes.
2
I don't understand the motive for carrying out the attacks. The attacks send a message that shipping in general through the bay is at risk, and that many different parties may suffer.
The US is not the lone target. What does the attacker gain? One possible outcome is war with Iran, which would be far more harmful to Iran than to the US. Why would Iran provoke such a war? On the other hand, various parties can benefit if the US were to initiate a war with Iran. Among the parties are several middle Eastern countries including Turkey, Iraq, and Israel. Also various Islamic religious groups opposed to Iran's form of Islam might wish to stoke a war, Russia, the US itself, and China may each perceive the benefits of a a US-led war on Iran. Because Iran has so little to gain and the other parties may gain much more, motivation alone points the blame away from Iran. Before launching a war with Iran, the US has to produce evidence that actually proves that Iran is the culprit. Otherwise, this may be a rerun of the Iraq intrusion or the Viet Nam escalation. Can we as a country learn from history without repeating our past mistakes?
7
@Harold
"One possible outcome is war with Iran, which would be far more harmful to Iran than to the US."
I disagree. From Vietnam onward, our foreign wars have both spent trillions of our precious dollars, and have impoverished the trust by our allies that we are indeed a "great" nation.
8
This sounds a lot like the way Cheney and his people took unconfirmed raw intelligence to build a case for invading Iraq. It’s not fabricating evidence but misapprehending what it proves. It just so happens that having preconceived ideas about the meanings of things leads to conclusions that seem to be the only reasonable explanation using intelligence that fits with the presumptions, but when fully confirmed the facts lead to other conclusions.
We need to know more before concluding who is responsible. We have time. These attacks are not happening quickly nor have any people been harmed. No need to go to war, yet.
3
I'm looking forward to any evidence from any other state in the region pointing to any other explanation at all.
3
The sad truth is that because of the current president, even many Americans don't believe our government. This is why honestly and integrity matter, and Trump has no business being President. Since the President refuses to read the Presidential Daily Briefing, maybe the answer is to have the CIA brief the public directly. At this point, they have way more credibility than the administration.
20
It seems like one possibility is that the goal was to force the crews to abandon ship without sinking the ships or killing the crews. The mine may have been placed as a backup plan in case the initial attack failed to sufficiently damage the ship, or perhaps it had another purpose. This would be consistent with a crew finding a possible mine on the side of a ship and not being super cautious about removing it (because they knew what it was, implying someone aligned with them placed it).
So while I cannot say that the Iranians made a limited attack on the ships to force the crews to abandon them, the evidence presented does not eliminate that possibility.
Even if the Iranian did attack, it was the Trump admin baiting for war. Sanction is the same as an oil embargo on Imperial Japan that put her into a corner starting an attack on Pearl Harbor and WWII.
The Iranians dare US to attack. The ball is on US court to do something drastic or just admit sanction is a foolish idea.
1
How do we know that the small boat removing the object is Iranian?
8
Katana wasn't even on the ship and knowes nothing about weapons and their effects. So why even listen to him?
Remember the Maine and the outbreak of the US-Spanish war ?
5
Iran has strenuously denied any involvement in the attack. As Queen Gertrude said in Hamlet, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks".
1
Huh? How much more proof of direct culpability do you need with the video of the Iranian sailors removing the defective magnetic sea mine off the hull of one of the targeted, burning tanker ships! This is a clear cut act of war!
3
@Moe
Huh? If you're going to be that literal about it, then the fact is that removing a mine is the exact opposite of an act of war.
6
@Moe
You mean the video of a blurred boat with blurred people removing the mine from a blurred boat? Why do you think that is an Iranian soldier, and why do you think that is their mine, rather than someone else's that they are removing? There's nothing distinctive there to identify whose boat it is.
7
@Moe
You can tell they're Iranian from a fuzzy video?
Shades of the Iraq buildup. Let's do something incredibly stupid again. Same as it ever was.
4
Every prosecutor likes to prove means, opportunity and motive. What conceivable motive could Iran have to bring the fiery wrath of the Western world down upon them? How do they gain by damaging these freighters? Sadly, it is much easier to find a motive inside the twisted persona of our Liar-in-Chief and his bellicose minions Bolton and Pompeo.
12
An unexploded mine was removed by a small boat from the side of a tanker that had already been damaged by other limpet mines. Which nation knows that it is there? Which nation has a reason to remove it? Iran certainly does since an intact mine might be evidence of its source. Which nation has stated for years that it could shutdown Gulf oil shipping by using mines? If all that the NYT and its followers will accept as evidence is to see a boat carrying an Iranian flag deliver the mine and then see the mine explode(although hard to rule out a false flag operation) as evidence of culpability, no conclusion will ever be made. I want Trump in prison as much as anyone else but please. The charge to the jury in U.S. criminal cases is beyond a reasonable doubt-why not here?
1
If something was flying, as was reported by the Japanese captain, what would that be? A drone, perhaps? And where did that come from?
1
Aren't limpet mines typically attached below the waterline?
11
No more neocon wars unless they and their children go this time.
23
What are you going to believe, the evidence and your lying eyes, or Donald Trump and the war hawks who advise him?
In the meantime, Congress fiddles while the country -- and possibly the Middle East again -- gets ready to burn.
8
It's impossible to believe anything this administration says.
It's insane to send our children off to die in support of any Trumpolinian claims.
A person with limited video skills could have faked it. And there are people who are very good who could have done so as well.
Lets put rifles in the hands of those brave and well skilled, like Don Jr. and Eric. Give them the thrill of shooting at targets that return fire. Let them be in the first wave.
9
Let's not get the dog's tail wagging us too easily, please.
Our servicemen deserve far better than to be sent into another war based on lies for political expediency.
10
It has come to this: I have more reason to trust the Iranians than an "America" with trump, bolton & pompeo at our helm.
P.S. There must be money to be made by the donald & sons, and jared, in consequence of this mischief in the Gulf of Oman. If nothing else, MbS would surely pay his bff jared and our potus penny-pincher dearly for a U.S. "police action" that would cripple Iran, his foremost enemy.
8
After Bush sent us to the Middle East using their false theories, I’m skeptical too. Need more data, better data.
7
The op/ed adopts a balanced, skeptical tone as though in pursuit of factual evidence, but the key point of contention isn't whether an attack happened, or whether there is evidence apparently implicating Iranian actors; the key is to discern whether said evidence has been intentional fabricated. Web sources are irrelevant toward that end. The op/ed is therefore beside the point, more obfuscating than illuminating. This in itself is Gulf of Tonkin, U.S. Maine, WMD: full of itself failed MSM, complicit, lacking independence, theory, courage, sources.
5
The only thing we know for sure is that the price of oil went up.
And who benefits from that?
I’m no expert, but if I wanted dramatic photos with the least chance of losing the ship or its cargo, I cannot think of a more optimal scenario than this.
Who is the least likely to benefit? My guess is the Iranians.
4
We know now that videos can be altered so professionally that the threads of deceit are difficult to unwind.
We know Bolton and Pompeo are pushing a war to aid trump's re-election.
We know the theocrats want a war in the Middle East, believing their god will return to earth and bestow on them demigod ruling status.
Given Congressional dysfunction, it isn't a matter of if, it's a matter of when.
We are truly in the post-truth era.
18
Thanks, Mr. Higgins. This kind of rational, evidence-based reasoning is why I subscribe to the NYT and support freedom of the press and genuinely investigative journalism. The world doesn't need another war based on spurious claims. Eyewitness testimony and physical evidence here both raise serious doubts (at the very least) about White House claims that could easily become a "causus bellum" if accepted without question. Fake news is dangerous, very dangerous indeed, which is why the world needs real news from real reporters like you.
6
Trump and his republican enablers are now emboldened to lie to the American public on all things large and small. How will we know when they tell the truth about something really important? Will the rank and file in the military speak up to protect our democracy? I doubt it. We sold our foreign policy to the highest bidder two years ago, and Trump and Kushner determined who the villains were going to be. So far, everything is going according to the script they created. The rest of the world would be wise to be very, very skeptical.
8
r.goad in California writes, "The US has been itching for a fight with Iran since the 70's, when they took over the US Embassy." Wrong. You have omitted a long history. The U.S. and Britain have been trying to control Iranian oil since the resource was first discovered. We overthrew the democratically-elected government of Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953 and installed a monarch we could control, the Shah. The Iranians overthrew him in 1979.
The hostage crisis was caused by Iranians' perception that the U.S. was trying to undermine the Iranian Revolution. Subsequently, our government armed Saddam Hussein in a bloody war against Iran, costing about half a million lives. The war ended without victories on either side, and the Iranian government remains in power--much to the chagrin of John Bolton & Co., the Saudi monarchy, and the Israeli government.
I wonder how many Iranians we will have to kill to get control of those oil fields again.
20
This is the relationship that Trump has created with two-thirds of Americans -- he lies so much that many of us automatically assumed that his administration's explanation of the incident is a lie. We know that Trump will act against the best interests of U.S. citizens if it serves his need to burnish his myth. Take, for example, instances of undoing Obama successes. When most citizens can't trust the word of our government, we are in grave danger.
11
Let's be absolutely clear. There were no American or American allied assets damaged in this operation. There is no solid evidence that Iran was involved. The silly video doesn't cut it at any level.
Then there is the complete lack of motive on Iran's part. The tankers were actually Japanese, and the attacks took place while Prime Minister Abe was in Tehran. Why would Iran want to do this? Japan has not filed a complaint about this event, so why is the Trump administration trying to gin up some kind of pretext for action? On whose behalf? This makes no sense whatever.
It is also true that Bolton, Pompeo and Trump desperately want to engage Iran in conflict. So do Saudi Arabia and some of the more out-there princelings in the UAE. It would be so easy to set up a false flag operation--especially one that doesn't involve Saudi Arabian or UAE assets. This is the most plausible explanation for this event.
Once again: NO AMERICAN OR AMERICAN ALLIED ASSETS WERE INVOLVED.
733
@William O, Beeman The United States is the authority behind NATO. NATOs vital resources are at risk. The USA is obliged by contract.
7
@William O, Beeman
" ... so why is the Trump administration trying to gin up some kind of pretext for action? "
This is one of the better distractions we've seen from the Trump administration. Iran in particular and Muslims in general are pre-demonized within the 40% Trump base.
What's not to like?
Would anyone seriously consider impeachment while the US was militarily involved against middle-east terrorists?
71
@William O, Beeman, wrong my friend; Japan is one of our staunchest allies. Those tankers belong to them, regardless of flag of registration.
12
Trump desperately needs a war to win re-election. Any war will do:justified or not. There is hence, absolutely no chance for peace.
6
Who would plant a mine above the waterline? The ship was 50 miles from shore. If a frogman could get to it (from a nearby submarine) why would he plant the mine above the waterline? The idea is to sink the ship, not just cause visible damage.
The skipper of the damaged ship said the damage was caused by a projectile (i.e. missile). He was there. I believe him.
I strongly suspect the video shown on TV was doctored, to make it look like the Iranians were removing a visible mine. Some reports say the Iranians rescued the ship's crew. Where are they now? Were they repatriated or are they being held hostage?
Lots of questions, few answers.
7
@Dan Silagi
Ships crews transferred to an American warship. The ship was likely deliberately listed over (ballast shifted) to put the holes above the waterline to avoid sinking.
It is possible... I wasn't there, that an explosion could look like an incoming projectile by someone that was very surprised. I'd hold off on making that judgement until more information comes out.
As for deploying limpet mines on what would presumably be a moving ship... just guessing: attached in port, set off remotely? Deployed by underwater drone? Deployed ahead of the target and left to drift and attach themselves? If it was a limpet mine... best bet is deployed in port, set off later.
Further investigation in the manner should be possible. If it was a limpet mine, as US sources contend, is the damage to the ship consistent with that of a limpet mine?
It would seem logical that an attacker would have used multiple limpet mines, so the presence of one, if it was there, suggests there were others that did explode. Do the holes shown in the photos of the ship comport with the damage that one of these mines would cause?
There must be some sort of expert knowledge in this area, maybe naval munitions veterans that can offer commentary or have previously posted online?
130
@Wayne Cunningham That's why the Iranians sent that boat to the ship...because the other limpet mine didn't explode and they didn't want clear evidence left behind.
Reading these comments on this forum makes me distressed as an objective American.
This is how countries end up going to war.
People lose objectivity in looking at the facts and then peeling back the layers of the onion to uncover more facts and context for why things happen.
To listen to most of the NYT faithful, we should apologize to Iran and let them do whatever they want..including nuking Tel Aviv right off the map.
This is also why American Presidents shouldn't foolishly think they are God by doing treaties with countries that are not ratified by the 100 elected REpresentatives We The People send to the U.S. Senate to deliberate such serious propositions.
Obama screwed up..big time..and now Iran's not happy the "deal" Obama signed with his own pen and phone...is not being honored by the President and Administration that followed his.
You'd think a guy who taught Constitutional Law would know these things.
Hubris is a powerful drug for American Presidents, and now we have to clean up after him.
Saudis are trying to get weapons from USA and this might be a ruse to convince the U.S. that they really need the weapons to defend themselves from Iranian aggression. Anything goes since Trump administration has already approved the weapon sales and Saudis need to justify their purchase and anything like this would make it easier for the weapon deal to go through. As we all are aware Iranian backed rebel forces are fighting Saudi backed troops in Yemen so it is not a far fetched idea in this day and age to create chaos and smoke screen and everything goes in flame. We should learn from the Iraqi war that misinformation can cause unnecessary deaths on both sides and what to speak of financial depletion. May God give intelligence to the politicians so they don't create another Iraqi or Vietnam war and this time we can be sure that it is not going to end well for anyone.
212
@DK
Aye, we seem to be knee deep in politicians and political pundits but sadly bereft of true statesmen/women.
Presumably the responsibility for that lies with the electorate.
12
We have a President who says trade wars are "good, and easy to win". In fact everything he does he says is good and easy to win. Congress must not let this President recklessly get the US into a war with Iran.
8
And even is Iranian, was it the Iranian government or the Revolutionary Guard. The Guard is not an arm of the government, you know. The Guard often goes off on its own tangent.
67
@CPMariner. As I understand it the revolutionary guard is not officially part of the military, but has gained so much power that it has surpassed the religious fanatics who nominally run the govt. That is, they are the government!!
4
@CPMariner nothing gets done in Iran without Khomeini’s approval!
1
Limpet mines have been used almost exclusively by military to attack ships by punching holes in the hull below the water line.
I'm no expert but if you want to sink or damage a ship, why place a mine that far above the water line?
In fact, limpet mines are typically deployed by frogmen. How would they get a mine that high up on the hull, and why risk exposure doing so?
371
@Jack Amen. The photos make the argument for a limpet and a diver not credible.
23
@Jack
A number of ships deliberately holed above the waterline
are a message sent.
18
@Jack
Maybe the goal was not to sink the ship, merely damage it without killing the crew?
It is a civilian tanker loaded with stuff no one would not want in the water, and this is not WWII.
22
It would be completely against Iran's interest to attack two Japanese tankers while Abe was in Iran. Contrary to Trump's spin Abe wasn't there to make peace between the US and Iran, he was there because Japan gets 40% of its oil from Iran.
No Israel is the country with the most likely motive.
377
@deepharbor
Thankfully readers are more insightful than those in the Times trumpeting the US propaganda. I encourage everyone in the public to loudly object to this phony call for war. Letters to the editor of your local newspapers, to the Times, Tweet, FB - any method that confronts this ridiculous but dangerous war story.
24
@deepharbor
And as we all know that Israel is also responsible for all political instability in the Middle East, as well by extension for global warming.This leaves no doubt and now we have the smoking tanker to prove it. Clearly the work of the Mossad.
8
Why would Israel have the most likely motive? Explain.
9
Actually, I haven't seen anything that convinces me the Iranians are there at all. The linked article references Ashoura-class and Zolfaqar-class speedboats. There's no mention of a Gashti-class or model. The only image resembling the boat pictured is linked to a dead video stream. Perhaps Gashti is a sub-type of Ashoura? We have no idea.
Either way, both patrol boats aren't exactly maritime archetypes. They're pretty generic speedboat designs adapted in specifically Iranian ways. If you can manufacture any fiberglass powerboat, you can probably knock together something that looks like the boat in the picture.
Assuming all the Iranian speedboats are even accounted for. I don't see any VIN markings on the allegedly Iranian vessel either. The US equivalent: Are we talking about the USS Cole or the USS McCain? That should be a pretty easy question to answer. Especially when you have image enough to spot a supposed limpet mine.
That's assuming the images are real at all. The special effects crew from "Enemy of the State" put together better work back in 1998.
Nope. Not buying it. I'm just as convinced US or Saudi impostors were trying to remove a mine they knew would reveal their espionage. There's absolutely no reason right now to believe one account anymore than the other. Actually, based on recent events, you can discount US and Saudi credibility quite substantially.
682
@Andy
The ship captain made an interesting observation.
He says the photo we released showing hull damage and an attached mine is on the starboard side while his ship was hit on the port side.
I think this is vital info if verified. Why isn't it being discussed?
108
@Andy
Here's a pretty convincing ID of the Iranian speed boat used in the mine retrieval.
https://twitter.com/BabakTaghvaee/status/1139434348640440321
@Andy Wow! When you look outside your front window, can you see the black helicopters hovering over your home?
The reason we havent' already bombed Iran is because our Intelligence Agencies are triple checking to confirm the evidence we already have.
Unless of course..you don't trust our Intelligence agencies.
You know..the 27 of them that all confirmed that Russia interfered in our 2016 election, that Iraq had WMD, and there was no movement by Russian troops in Eastern Ukraine or Crimea?
3
An important factor in trying to figure out what happened here is the decrease in reliability of the US over the past couple of years, as the world has come to realize that the Trump administration traffics in lies to an unparalleled extent.
So the American allegation that the attacks came from Iranian forces may seem to the world just another case of Trump making stuff up. Against that background, it is quite possible the Iranians did it, knowing that the world would not automatically accept America's declarations.
A case of the wolf deliberately using the shepherd boy's history of crying wolf to get at the flock.
That's what we've come to.
464
@Matthew Hughes
It is indeed what we've come to, but considering the Gulf of Tonkin incident, we may have been here all along.
90
@Matthew Hughes
"Against that background, it is quite possible the Iranians did it, knowing that the world would not automatically accept America's declarations."
On the other hand there is no advantage whatsoever for them to have done the deed.
And American declarations? What worth has that?
44
@Tim Rowe Conservatives who were young adults when the Gulf of Tonkin happened didn't care when they learned later the entire thing was a fabrication. It was the same with WMD. These are the old Trump voters of today. It's been proven they don't really care about right and wrong, they didn't then, they don't now.
40
This article is interesting for more than what it says.
The author was a civilian who developed some neat tricks to use publicly available cyber material to check claims made about incidents and wars. He surprised specialists with how much he could do.
However, he was then accused of being co-opted by British and American intelligence services, in particular pushing their themes in Syria. His work was sometimes far from convincing to me, applied to Syria.
Now he challenges the intelligence assessment pushed by Pompeo and Bolton. (Trump is just a credulous one believing what they say).
Does this mean that there are responsible people inside our intelligence services who do not want to be used to push this warmongering? Is this rebellion?
The information offered here is inconclusive, and the article is more interesting for the point that he was willing to publish it. He wouldn't do that with so little data if it infuriated the people he'd been backing in Syria.
So I think there will be more. The other side of our intelligence may start to leak.
I hope this time it is published, and we hear about it, rather than a repetition of what happened with WMD in Iraq.
4
Authorities are alleging the mines were placed on the ship by divers. But the height of the mine on the side of the ship is clearly too high for a diver. Another said the mines were placed at or below the water line. Unless this ship is floating incredibly higher after the explosion then it was before the site of the explosion and the attached unexploded mine are well above the water line.
12
@Al Sinclair
I didn't know this, but if so, it would seem they'd have the same divers retrieve the failed limpet mine.
@Al Sinclair
Ships can pump ballast and list over. Probably a smart thing to do if water is pouring in through a hole.
I tend to find the claims of the administration suspect, especially since the owners of the ship have an alternate narrative, and frankly, they were there.
Trump would love something like this to try to win the next election, thinking it might unify us against a common enemy. Problem is, we have one, his name is Trump.
53
@David
Trump, once again, is in projection mode, but hasn't admitted it yet: in 2011, he accused Obama of wanting to start a war with Iran in order to affect the 2012 election.
6
When the Torrey Canyon broke up on the coast of France or the oil rig off the coast of Santa Barbara developed a leak or the Deep Horizon blew up and the we got of taste of the damage that could be done, I'd be hard pressed to believe a government entity would purposely sponsor another man made ecological disaster like blowing up an oil tanker in their own backyard, so to speak.
But then again, we sponsored former ally Sadam Hussein in his war of aggression against Iran and later on he purposely set on fire the oil fields of Kuwait.
There are a lot of strange forces at play here. Of course, if I was Iran I'd be upset that the Saudi's and UAE, etc., are allowed to sell all the oil they want to just about whomever they want and we, Iran are restricted from selling our oil to whom ever we want. So, I guess, I might say,"If we can't sell our oil, nobody can!"
4
@Steve
Oddly enough, neither ship was carrying heavy crude (excepting ship's fuel). One was naphtha, the other methanol. Certainly not good to dump in the water, but not the huge sticky mess that crude oil would leave.
Coincidence? Dd the people that did this know what they were doing? I don't know.
1
Even if it *was* Iran -- are we going to pretend that Iran isn't *already* under attack by the U.S. and it's allies? How would we respond if a third country -- other than our dear friends Russia or North Korea, of course -- was actively sabotaging our economy and encircling us militarily?
Then again, we're so exceptional in our aggression, any response is in itself a crime.
What a great time to be an American!
15
President Trump has already stated firmly that U.S. intelligence is not to be trusted, that it is an enemy of the state. So why would American information be believed?
39
It doesn't really matter. This whole thing was set in motion when Trump tore up the nuclear agreement with Iran and re-applied sanctions. There's the problem. The torn-up agreement. What was the point of that? And why is war the only solution to it? There are a lot more basic questions we can be asking than "did Iran do this" when it comes to how we respond.
98
@bounce33
Totally agree.
5
I still do not see a proof that Iran was behind those attacks. The tugs removing those mines did not have anything to show that it belonged to Iran.
15
When that one side is "Trump and Co.", I am doubtful of their veracity. From a president who lies constantly and who might very well have his own reasons for wanting to up the escalation. The little Don who cried Wolf one to many times.
39
We certainly do not need what amounts of a Gulf of Oman declaration given the lack of credibility of the Trump administration. It will take a neutral party to sort through the evidence not Donald Trump or his neocon war hawks Mike Pompeo and John Bolton. Let's hope both the Gulf of Tonkin and WMD that precipitated two costly and needles wars in Vietnam and Iraq are not repeated here with more "fake news."
44
Thins is why truth matters, and it highlights how much Trump has destroyed for so little gain. I have no idea who actually attacked the ships. But when the Trump administration has lied about absolutely everything big and small, what faith can we have in them on this? Are other governments providing independent attributions?
109
Why did the crews of both vessels abandon ship immediately? No attempt to control the fires, though they were apparently not in the immediate vicinity of the flammable cargo.
7
@Texas TraderThese are not war ships. Human life comes first in these instances. Fighting fires at sea is extremely dangerous, especially on a ship carrying flammable and toxic cargo.
14
@Texas Trader: Maybe they jumped ship because the cargo being oil based is highly explosive when exposed to fire or flame. ( I know that if it was me on that ship full of volatile fuel, I would have been quick to go over the side!)
5
@Scott -- Yes. Also, these ships are huge, and the crews are tiny. They could do little, and able to do so little their risks would be magnified.
They have a plan. They followed their plan. Get out alive, and call the insurance company to hire salvage.
5
If there is to be a war, let it be fought by the navies of Panama and the Marshall Islands, where these boats were registered.
26
The whole saga of the campaign against the Iran nuclear deal has been a slow motion Gulf of Tonkin incident. The current maximum pressure campaign against Iran would not have been possible without that campaign against the nuclear deal. Whether or not Iran attacked those ships, the economic war against the country is underway and is crippling Iran’s economy with nobody knows what long-term consequences. The only way to escalate at this point is to start bombing and make John Bolton’s dreams come true.
48
@Mike Bolton won't stop till he gets his war.
1
Wars are well known as "weapons of mass distraction" for their ability to distract voters from things a President doesn't want talked about or examined. They've also been used extensively by tyrants wishing to cement and hold onto their power. With these things in mind, it won't surprise me if:
1. Trump declares war on Iran.
2. As his term nears its end, and especially if the polls show him liable to lose, that he declares himself "Caretaker" until the hostilities end. Don't expect a swift end there either.
Trump will do anything - and the Republicans will aid and abet him without fail - to hold onto the Presidency, and declaring a war is not even the most egregious thing on that list.
Be very afraid America.
267
@Kingfish52 . Trump can order hostilities against Iran, but cannot declare war. Only Congress can do that, and a majority of the House will reject that notion, and I suspect that a majority of the Senate will as well. They can also deny funding, though Trump can take funds from practically any other account to spend on such a conflict. If he does, popular sentiment will demand impeachment, or even provoke civil unrest here. Either way, he will be alone, literally, in the White House.
22
This in no way reflects the reality of Presidential military direction over the last sixty years, nor the subservience that the Republican Senate has demonstrated over the past three years.
6
@kamikrazee "Hostilities" or "war"..."A rose by any other name...". Blood is still spilled, money still spent, so in the end there isn't any difference. Trump will do what Trump wants to do. Congressional abdication has made him into an "800 pound gorilla".
And to your last line - whether or not he's alone, he'll still be in the White House unless Congress finally steps up to do their sworn duty.
24
We have conflicting narratives: First, that we don't know if Iran did this. Second, that if they did it is their way of telling the US and the world that the sanctions are hurting them deeply and they can inflict a great deal of pain in response. What we don't have is a clear indication of what US policy is trying to accomplish regarding Iran. The clearest indication is that the goal is regime change, either by inflicting sufficient economic pain to induce overthrow of the regime, or, if necessary, by military force, including invasion and occupation. Either path foreshadows upheaval and instability in the region for decades to come, to no one's benefit, with the possible exceptions of, not the US and Israel, but, rather, the short term political fortunes of Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu.
73
@Deja Vu MBS would probably like it too.
3
@Deja Vu . regime change would mean that the religious based American haters would be replaced with secular America haters.
Would that be an improvement?
1
Everyone to blame and benefit, but Iran...pitiful!
1
No. They're a deliberate attack on an economic component that is crucial to the economies of all democracies.
And there's no question who did it.
7
@znlgznlg I thoroughly agree, but perhaps not about who unquestionably did it. Evidence and precedents point to one most-likely suspect. You show me yours and I'll show you mine.
14
@znlgznlg
The captain of the Kokuka made an interesting point.
He pointed out that the photo we released showing damage to the hull and a mine attached was on the starboard side of the ship but his ship was actually hit on the port side.
To me that negated any finger pointing against Iran.
What happened immediately after the attack?
Oil prices jumped and who does that benefit?
The Saudi royal family, Trumps best buddies who loaned Kushner money and spend heavily at Trump's hotel.
27
@znlgznlg
Same old, same old nonsense. All the more reason to move as expeditiously as possible away from dependency on fossil fuels.
11
Saudi Arabia and Israel want Iran out of the way. Israel wanted to bomb Iran years ago but the USA convinced them not too. And the current events of Saudis actions in Yemen is clear. They want that problem to go away and to be the primary power int the middle east. These are phony attacks and not by Iran. Why would Iran put themselves is such a vulnerable position.
What do you think Kushner is doing going back and forth to those 2 countries? Wonder what the payoff is to Trump and family? Does anybody think he is really working on a peace settlement with the Palestinians and a 2 state solution?
Trump and Kushner have the audacity to do this since they feel they are invulnerable given the Republican Senate and the far right. Too bad for our service men if this leads to more USA involvement and conflict in the middle east. Does anybody think they care about our citizens and the cost of war? It is all about money.
217
Agree, except that Israel wanted to bomb Iran years ago, and wanted the US to do it , and past Administrations were not so easily manipulated. Now perhaps they’ve found the stooges.
19
@Vail
I think Israel is behind this and not because of money.
Netanyahu would love a "war" against Iran to start before the elections necessisitated by his failure to put together a government.
He thinks that if "war" is going on, the Israeli people would prefer him to be in charge. And he's right.
This sounds like a plan that Kushner and Netanyahu came up with after new elections were called.
Moreover, Netanyahu might get the charges against him dropped if he's a hero during a "war."
11
Again, all in Israel and us is evil, Iran totally innocent and blameless!
1
I think the Saudi Arabians (with help from Moscow) staged the attack trying to frame Iran. That way the U.S. will go to war with Iran, which is exactly what the Saudis (and Putin) want.
150
Bravo! I’m amazed that more people haven’t come to this fairly clear conclusion.
25
@Doug
Could this have been done by Israel? Theycertainly have a motive. And Netanyahu is not trustworthy.
14
@Doug: I think you may be confused. While the Saudis (and Israel and the UAE) would love for the US to attack Iran, Russia is totally opposed to such an outcome:
“I would take the opportunity to warn against hasty conclusions, against attempts to lay the blame at the door of those we don’t like.
"Lately we have been seeing a strengthening campaign of political, psychological and military pressure on Iran. We wouldn’t want the events that have just happened, which are tragic and shook the world oil market, to be used speculatively to further aggravate the situation in an anti-Iranian sense."
~Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, quoted by the RIA news agency
6
The US should know by now, after the last episode of minings in the Gulf who is responsible for this current sabotage. If it was the IRGC forces as is assumed here, then i believe a mistake was made in not voicing a stern warning that the perps would suffer the consequences of military action in the Gulf. Perhaps now they feel emboldened that nothing will happen and that they continue to lash out against the US and nothing will happen. One thing is certain this corrupt and malicious regime masquerading as a Shiite Religious Republic has caused trouble for too long in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, etc. and whatever can be done to contain it must be done. The US would be wise to enlist the rest of the World instead of freelancing this on their own.
8
@Rudolfrojas: there isn't the tiniest of all tiny chances that "the rest of the world" will go along with US aggression against Iran. "The rest of the world," with the exception of Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Israel, is horrified by our relentless belligerence.
170
@Rudolfrojas
I for one will not support military action against Iran. They are not an existential threat to anyone in an age of nuclear weapons. Sanctions fine. Increased economic pressure, no problem. No trillions of dollars spent for nothing...
13
@Rudolfrojas
Not likely at all that Trump will be able to muster any kind of support from your former allies. We've learned that Trump's words are worth nothing, and it's been obvious for years that Bolton is itching to start a war with Iran on any pretext.
Furthermore, Western politics are in upheaval due to the destabilizing effects of right-wing populists: do you really think Britain, France, Germany, Canada, or any of the northern European countries are willing to follow an unstable US into yet another mid-Eastern quagmire? Australia, maybe, but I doubt it. Yes, you might have the support of Poland and Hungary, but that won't get you far. Good luck.
3
Mr. Higgins has provided an excellent analysis of the facts of the Gulf of Oman incident, at least as we know them at this point.
But if the past three years have taught us anything, it is that Trump and his sycophants will disregard all available facts and evidence, lie to his base (because they want him to), and throw this nation into a war with Iran as it becomes increasingly clear he will not win the 2020 election (assuming he permits one, that is).
There has not been one international situation Trump has faced since taking office that he hasn't lied about, even though the facts were there for all to see.
Serving as Putin's boy toy? Obvious in Helsinki. Caving to his "love" Kim Jong-un? Undeniable. Talking tough against the Chinese, as he backpedals with every schoolyard taunt he makes? We've seen this show any number of times.
The fact is, we have a dictator who is now only limited by his imagination and the laws of physics. And he has only one motivation -- to stay out of prison. Which means he must do something -- anything -- to try to remain in office, including lying to throw this country into a disastrous war.
Now, a U.S. first strike on Iran would be an unmitigated disaster. Think Afghanistan or Iraq on steroids. The only result will be hundreds of thousands of dead Iranian citizens (or more), thousands of U.S. military personnel, and the further erosion of U.S. standing and credibility.
But this is where Trump will take us. Bet the rent on it.
95
The US has been itching for a fight with Iran since the 70's, when they took over the US Embassy. Trouble is, we're picking a fight with a formidable well-armed angry enemy. Not like the usual pushovers. Be prepared for horrendous casualties, tremendous collateral damage and lots and lots of moola directed to our favorite greedy defense contractors. "Gulf of Tonkin Syndrome" is back. I'm sure Trump is happy
46
What we can be absolutely sure of is Trump lies with every breath he takes. Has he ever spoken the truth in his life? Evidence says no.
We know for a fact that Bolton has dedicated the last three decades to trying to get the US to invade or nuke Iran. We don't know what his state of mind is, but we know he will lie to accomplish his goal as he did in the lead up to the Bush Iraq invasion fiasco.
We cannot allow Trump, Bolton or any other Russian Republicans lie us into another American tragedy.
181
@JABarry - Sadly, Netanyahu would give his right leg (and more) to decimate Iran. The Saudis are not bright enough to have staged the false operation, leaving the Israelis the culprits. -- Trump has been embecilic not to have removed Bolton and Pompeo, both super Neocon warhawks - pawns of both Israel and the military industrial complex. Pompeo formerly owned a weapons company in Wichita, KS. And for Sec. of Defense, you have a good ole ex-Boeing exec. So, these boys are itching for war. Anyone with the IQ of a turnip would know that Iran would not do things this absurd/foolish. But the AIPAC (Israeli American) lobby is by far the most powerful one in terms of its influence over Congress, so don't be surprised by congressional support of moronic asinine attacks against Iran.
2
On the BBC News Hour this morning on NYR I heard an Iranian government spokesman point out that the Iranian navy was there to remove the mine to stop the possibility of another explosion while also removing endangered sailors from the ship. This is reasonable considering the ship was close to Iran.
152
Do you think responsible authorities in the US government would agree with this article? No way. Next we (USN ships) will escort the oil tankers and soon thereafter there will be some little boat and somebody will throw a rock at a navy ship and we'll be at war with Iran.
22
Just yesterday we saw on TV examples of "deep fakes" - how today's digital technology enables those who wish to pull the wool over our eyes easy ways to do so.
Why would anyone believe anything coming out of this Trump administration? And how could this video be acknowledged as proof that Iran had anything to do with the explosions?
69
Given the proximity of the event to Iranian naval forces it is plausible an Iranian unit removed a possible mine to avoid further damage. Doing so no more indicates it was an Iranian device than had a US team removed the same object would have been proof the US planted it. That these attacks prove serious is one thing, but the immediate and aggressive US assertion that this was Iranian-initiated is at this moment without foundation. Earlier today American sources condemned a Houthi cruise missile attack on a Saudi airport without mention the thousands of Yemenis killed by Saudi bombing.
The United States is simply an unreliable source of information on this region.
75
@usa999
I have no expertise in this area, but I am guessing that if a US ship's crew removed an unfamiliar (potential) mine, they would not do so without taking every precaution to limit the number of people injured or killed if it exploded when it was being handled. This does not seem to be how the Iranian crew was positioned during the removal of the device from the tanker. One reason for this might be they knew it was not going to explode.
4
@Alan Presumably they didn't put a dud mine there deliberately. How could they be absolutely sure the mine wouldn't explode?
2
@Alan have you ever seen scaffolding in the Middle East? Loss of life in any endeavor is not at a premium so to equate safety to these folks is ludicrous
1
What nationality are these tankers? Japan and Taiwan, so I was told. May well be registered in Panama, but I’m talking about the effective owners. Many reports are silent on this. I wonder why. Of course they are outside Euro American sphere. Is this why?
7
When Bolton made the statement that essentially any aggressive action by anyone affiliated closely or loosely with the Iranians would be taken as an act of war by Iran, he opened up a can of worms whose contents almost certainly lead to war. There are many players and many interests within and outside of Iran, many of which may benefit from a US/Iran dust up. Think Russian influences factions within Iran. Russia guarantees the limited scope of a war while picking the winning emerging governing faction to take over in Tehran. Win/win for Russians.
24
@William R Please get over the "Russian" hysteria. Russia has worked steadily with Iran to protect the West, Saudis, Brits, French, Israelis from removing Assad and putting in a stooge govt. that will enable Syria to be weak or greatly partitioned. This is what the West did to Libya, when Russia did NOT intervene (but trusted the U.S.' security council resolutions that it only wanted to create a no-fly zone. of course, the U.S. and West outrageously went beyond doing that.
us
6
@James lee
It is also worth noting that it was only the USA that walked away from the Iran nuclear deal framework. No-one else did.
Personally, I think the USA acted in exceddingly bad faith.
9
@douglas clark, totally agree with you.
1
Let's list the possibilities and see if this is a set up.
1) Trump wants to topple the Iranian regime.
2) Many nations we are allied with in the region want to topple the regime.
3) Many Iranian citizens want to topple the regime.
Money buys influence, especially in the Middle East, so:
4) Did any of the above pay anyone from anywhere to stage these attacks?
5) Or, did any of Iran's enemies commit these attacks in hopes of starting a war?
It is no secret that Trump loves gunboat diplomacy. Trump has targeted Iran at the behest of Israel and Saudi Arabia.
One of the most effective ways for an administration under political siege to save itself is to start a war somewhere. Oldest trick in the book. Would Trump do such a thing to save his administration? He has shown us that he will do anything he can get away with to get what he wants.
It may also be possible that Trump had nothing to do with this and Iran's enemies are goading him into a war. Or, Trump is in on it, but the result gets us to the same place, war.
That is my biggest fear. That no matter who did this or why, a hot war breaks out because that is what Trump wants.
135
@Bruce Rozenblitt
I agree with you to a point. Trump is not a war monger. His attitudes about Syria and NATO hint at that. It might be Entrenched Bureaucracy or what some call Deep State.
Kind of like what JFK faced with Vietnam and Cuba.
2
@JoeG, no he’s not a war monger but a power monger, which at times is worse. Plus, he will do anything to keep power. Do you really think he is above creating a situation that allows him to look strong AND keep himself out of jail?
7
@Bruce Rozenblit
Let us not forget Israel and what it stands to gain.
2
False claims of attacks on ships go back hundreds of years.
In a particularly outrageous example the press, led by William Randolph Hearst, claimed that the battleship Maine was blown up in Havana harbor by the Spanish. As he telegraphed the artist Fredrick Remington, “You provide the pictures, I’ll provide the war.” Years later it was established the an explosion in a coal bunker next to the ammunition stores was the real cause.
But it is more politically expedient to go to war.
107
In the end it wont matter, as Thucydides observed in the Melian Dialog, "you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."
61
I'd be inclined to take Mr. Higgins' analysis seriously, but he can't even get his history straight, settling for the narrative rather than the facts.
Take his claim that the Gulf of Tonkin "attack never happened." Well, WHICH attack never happened? The one on August 2, 1964? Or the one on August 4?
There is no dispute that there was an attack on the USS Maddox by three North Vietnamese torpedo boats on August 2. The question has always been about whether there was a second attack, on August 4, on the Maddox and the USS Turner Joy. That evening both reported that they were under attack by enemy patrol craft. The Navy told Washington that the attack had taken place. The basis for crews' reports was the interpretation of sonar and radar readings made in the dark of the night in a strong thunderstorm. The visual "sightings" were made by unseasoned sailors. Possibly they were mistaken. That is not settled.
But nothing supports the outrageous lie that LBJ faked the second attack. For one thing, he didn't need to. There was already one verified attack. For another, when doubts surfaced about the second attack, McNamara asked the Navy to confirm the attacks, and the Navy did so. And, finally, LBJ ordered retaliatory air strikes before any doubts arose. He believed the second attack had happened.
The lie about LBJ faking the attack has been shamelessly propagated by anti-war activists ever since. As they intended, their fabrication has poisoned our politics.
25
@Ian Maitland
And my recollection from the McMaster dissertation is that LBJ wasn't all that happy about the way things went. He felt dragged in
12
@Ian Maitland
You might be right about LBJ and the GoT incident, but perhaps what poisoned our politics were the constant lies that McNamara's own Pentagon Papers made it difficult to dispute. There are enough examples in US history of intentional misinformation to provide a case for war (the Maine in Havana harbor or the WMDs in Irak) to warrant a certain skepticism when it comes to these things. Even more so when you consider how absurd it would be for the Iranian government to incite a war they cannot possibly win.
35
@Ian Maitland The question of whether North Vietnam attacked two US destroyers on the night of August 4, 1964, is not still unsettled. The evidence against the attack became very strong once the US Navy had declassified most of the records of the destroyers. It became overwhelming when NSA declassified its materials on intercepted North Vietnamese Navy communications, beginning in the mid-1990s.
The report of an attack on August 4 originated not as a deliberate lie, but as as an honest mistake. But the accusations against LBJ are not deliberate lies either. The mistaken report of August 4 was very convenient for LBJ. The genuine battle on August 2 had not been good enough. The US was running a program of covert operations against the North Vietnamese coast called OPLAN 34A, which included shelling North Vietnamese islands. It sent a destroyer to patrol near one of those islands. When three North Vietnamese vessels came out after the destroyer, the destroyer fired first. That was not a clear, simple case of North Vietnamese aggression. The imaginary battle of August 4, much farther from the North Vietnamese coast, was much better for LBJ's purposes.
Cut LJB's accusers the same slack we cut LBJ. When they say something incorrect, it may be an honest mistake, not a lie.
19
Excellent article. Thanks to the author for the research.
22
Did the tankers carry oil from Iran? If so, given Iran's difficult financial conditions, why would it damage ships transporting its own oil?
Given the U.S. and other nation involvement in Iranian affairs,
perhaps someone besides Iran is responsible for the tanker attacks. And fortunately, no lives were lost in this suspicious episode of intrigue.
Doug Giebel, Big Sandy, Montana
57
@Doug Giebel another article said it was Saudi oil...
2
@DEG
If so, an Iranian attack on Saudi vessels makes sense, given their hostile relationship.
Could then be it was not aimed at the U.S.,
but it also did not improve U.S.Iran relations.
When will we ever learn?
dg
1
@Doug Giebel
If the following links are accurate, one ship last docked in the UAE, the other in Saudi Arabia.
https://www.vesselfinder.com/vessels/KOKUKA-COURAGEOUS-IMO-9568495-MMSI-371880000
https://www.vesselfinder.com/vessels/FRONT-ALTAIR-IMO-9745902-MMSI-538007007
No, it's not a Tonkin Gulf incident. The two ships damaged were not American flag vessels. In the Tonkin Gulf, the claimed attack was on a U.S. Naval vessel, the U.S.S. Maddox. That alone should be enough to make all parties back-off until cooler heads prevail.
The U.S. needs to confer with the owners of the two vessels, determine country of origin, and what treaties we have with them. Then if there are, work with those countries to determine a course of action. In other words use diplomacy.
32
>>> "No, it's not a Tonkin Gulf incident. The two ships damaged were not American flag vessels. In the Tonkin Gulf, the claimed attack was on a U.S. Naval vessel, the U.S.S. Maddox."
Not a relevant difference. The point of citing the Tonkin Gulf incident is that it was the basis for cooked intelligence used to justify US military escalation. That's what many of us suspect may be happening here, whatever the ownership, management or flags of convenience of the targeted tankers.
66
@Douglas "Not a relevant difference. Of course it is. President Johnson could only request a step up in the war effort if the alleged attack occurred to American Naval vessels. Congress never would have passed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution had the vessels been non flag commercial ships.
9
@cherrylog754: You're missing the point. In this case, it matters not at all to our warmongers whose vessels were attacked.
Again, the difference you cite is irrelevant in this context.
11
Yes and no. One has to be careful of false information. But Iran has been increasingly belligerent and there is no obvious alternative to the Iranian Theory. Historical precedents can be useful but also misleading.
7
@Michael Livingston
There are several very good alternatives to blaming Iran. The first, and most obvious is a false flag operation by Saudi Arabia and/or Israel. Both have sought to force the US to war with Iran for a long time. Both have the capability af carrying it out and both have long histories of similar operations. It makes no sense for Iran to attack a Japanese ship while Abe is in Tehran on a peace mission , but it makes a lot of sense for Saudi Arabia and/or Israel. What both countries leaders fear most is any kind of rapprochement between the US and Iran. And Trump has actually softened his stance somewhat lately and this coupled with the Abe mission is a real threat to them.
392
>>> " But Iran has been increasingly belligerent . . ."
No, it has not. In fact, Iran has been restrained and careful in the face of increasing US belligerence.
" . . . and there is no obvious alternative to the Iranian Theory."
Oh, yes, there are any number. And one of them, Tonkin Gulf Redux, is way more likely than the story our government is trying to sell.
333
@Michael Livingston
What "Iranian Theory" exactly? Some clarity would be useful.
1