Getting hot in the Gulf

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

It would seem in the interests of Iran to admit they were doing it and attempt to identify the mine if they had not planted it. They are denying both.
Other points.
It takes them no time to assess the mine, how it is attached, possible booby traps, etc.
They have a boat full of guys
None of them are wearing any kind of bomb disposal gear
None of them seem bothered by a guy holding a mine standing in the middle of them
None of which makes any sense unless they planted it in the first place, and replaced the safety lock before they removed it.

[Pontius Navigator]

Interesting placement of the limpets.

The traditional placement is underwater where the water will act as a tamper, breach the hull, and cause flooding - viz Bordeaux in WW2.

Against an underway tanker underwater placement would be difficult. Flooding in a double hull vessel would be localised. An above water charge would be easier for accurate placement. Placing on a reinforced section could transmit more shock and possibly rupture the inner hull. It would also avoid extinguishing any fire.

As for the why a Japanese tanker, hitting any particular ship requires a level of sophistication that might not be available on a launch.

They might have just used radar to find a suitable target rather than AIS to select or avoid a particular flag. If you do cock up, deny all knowledge.

[Undried Plum]

Initially, I was puzzled why they went mob-handed to remove the threat.

Then I realised that they are Salvor In Possession of a prize worth scores of millions of dollars.

Two reasons for the crowd scene:
1): Some potential salvors can be quite fighty over possession of a juicy prize. If it comes to fisticuffs or gun-play, best to have more pairs of hands than the other guys. Dutch salvagemen, in particular, can be quite assertive and forceful. I've seen them use fire monitors, steam hoses, pick-axe handles and even bare knuckles to seize a casualty from rivals.

2): Everyone aboard the salvaging vessels gets a share, not necesssarily equally, of the prize money. So no shortage of volunteers for that gig. Apportionment of prize money takes into account the level of effort and personal risk. Hence every swinging dick on that deck wanted to help to peel the limpet mine off the side of the casualty.

None of this constitutes any kind of proof, or even evidence, that it was the Pasdaran or Basseej or Sepah wot dun the placement of the mines.

[Undried Plum]

The choice of a Japanese target by Iran, in the middle of a visit from Shinzo Abe to Iran, seems extremely improbable to me.

He went in peace, against the wishes of The Great Empire, to discuss amicable trade relations. Bombing a Japanese tanker during such a positive and non-threatening visit by a worthy trading partner just isn't on.

If it was a false-flag attack, it might have an explicable agenda if the attackers wanted to undermine (no pun intended) such a beneficial and peaceful meeting which was so disapproved of by Bolton and his orange Emperor.

I still think that the underlying truth is simple though. Most likely attackers are the Houthi. It's a kick in the balls for their tormentors who so regularly bomb the schitt out of Yemen. The target is the financial jugular of Saudi and the Emirates.

[Stoneboat]

...Most likely attackers are the Houthi. It's a kick in the balls for their tormentors who so regularly bomb the schitt out of Yemen. The target is the financial jugular of Saudi and the Emirates.

Would the Houthi pull off a stunt like that without Iran's permission, particularly so since it has the potential embarrasses the shyte out of Iran because of the Japanese PM's visit.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

The way they removed the mine leaves no doubt in my mind that it was one of theirs. How else does one explain the way it was done?

[Undried Plum]

Would the Houthi pull off a stunt like that without Iran's permission, particularly so since it has the potential embarrasses the shyte out of Iran because of the Japanese PM's visit.

The Houthis don't need Iran's permission to be at war with Saudi/UAE.

They are at war with Saudi/UAE. Not a war of their choosing, but one which they are forced to respond to.

Yemen is one of the poorest countries in the world. Saudi/UAE are among the richest. Any warfare they fight must necessarily be assymmetric. They can't launch F-15s or Tornados or Tiffies, but limpet mines and skiffs are cheap as chips. It makes sense, from their point of view to inflict economic pain on their tormentors and they have a reservoir of disaffected Shias at each end of the Causeway to Bahrain.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Yes, but they are doing it with Iranian support. You don't think they knock those cruise missiles up in the Sana'a bazaars, do you?

[Undried Plum]

What "support" is alleged that would be necessary for Houthis to carry out these attacks in UAE waters?

They're Arabs, not Persians. They have a support base in the Gulf without Iran.

For the Salvor In Possession to remove an item of explosive ordnance from the side of a vessel carrying 25,000 tonnes of methylated spirit is entirely understandable. Indeed if they, as the local maritime authority did not do so, then we would be excoriating them for not doing so.

The Septics had a warship (and almost certainly one or more submarines as well) close by, but they didn't remove that mine, did they? To have done so would have required physical courage and would have undermined (that word again!) Bolton's narrative.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Firstly, I should perhaps re-iterate my complete disinterest in whether anyone may have been 'justified' in what they have or are going to do in the ME. I'm solely interested in establishing what happened.
The Houthi are Shia, it is that which is relevant, not the Arab-Persian difference. The Houthi slogan has the same elements as the Iranian's - Death to America, Death to Israel.
You have not addressed my points about the way the mine was removed.
One would not expect the Americans to be carting around a specialist bomb disposal team on their smaller warships, and the actions of those who did remove it were not those of a bomb disposal team. Nobody who doesn't know about the specifics of a mine is going to pull it off the side of a ship in 20 seconds and stand around in the middle of a crowded boat with it.

[Undried Plum]

I have no idea how many hours of that RiB bobbing about was snipped out of the propaganda video, so I don't know how long it took a Komiteh of enthusiasts to pull the release lever on that thing.

The video proves nothing about the Iranians other than the fact that it was they, not the Septics, who separated it from the Meths.

The Houthis have the means the motive and the opportunity to carry out such an attack. The Iranians only have the opportunity and the means.

It would make no sense for Iran to attack a Japanese tanker during a Japanese PMs visit, though a false flag op might well do so in order to persuade Japan that it's a not a good idea to consort with The Empire's enemy in that part of the world.

#1 suspect: the Houthis;

#2 suspect: the usual suspect in false flag attacks;

#3 suspect: Iran/Iraq/Syria/Venusians/Saudis/ProvisionalIRA/Roossians/Talebunnies/GreenPeas.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I agree that the Houthis may have placed it, but my point is that it's an Iranian-supplied mine, which is how the Iranians were able to make it safe and remove it so rapidly.
On a third viewing, it does not seem to me that any footage was edited out of that particular sequence. There may have been previous approaches by that RiB. However, the point remains that no safety precautions which would normally be associated with bomb disposal are being taken by that crew, other than my supposition that they have made the mine safe by having the correct safety device with them.
And if it is an Iranian-supplied mine, then we have the question as to whether it was used with Iranian approval or not. And that would be a guess, as the Houthis have had arguments with the Iranians before.
As with the cruise missiles - Iranian-supplied Soumars - if the Houthis keep using them for a purpose, and the Iranians keep supplying them, then we may presume the Iranians approve of the use. What we do not know is how big Houthi stocks from the prior shipments may be.

[Rwy in Sight]

Fox3WheresMyBanana, some random thoughts regarding the incident:

Where was the tanker when the mine was removed? If it was on Iranian territorial waters it is Iran's responsibility to render assistance. And as they say in TOP when a rescue takes place in the sea all involved are rewarded hence the "heavy" crew on the inflatable. Now regarding the equipment used some countries have a aversion on using safety equipment hence the images of lightly dressed crew.

I am not familiar with the distances involved and the complexities with placing mines on tankers while under way. I have only been on a stationary tanker about 35+ years ago and I don't know how easy is to check the sides of the vessel. Are Houthis able to run such an operation and if yes why against Iranian interests - the expression biting the hand it feeds you.

We did not see a picture / video of the RIB returning to a port /base with the mine? Suspicious about Iran involvement.

Finally who wins from the situation?

[Undried Plum]

Fox3WheresMyBanana, some random thoughts regarding the incident:

Where was the tanker when the mine was removed?

She was on the Iranian side of the median line, but outside the 12 mile limit.

It is therefore entirely to be expected that they would remove the mine if the Septics didn't have the balls to do so. Something like eight hours elapsed between the first explosion and the mine removal.

I do not see any evidence that removal of the mine is proof of placement of the mine by Iran. If it had been removed by USN SEALs then I would not be claiming on that basis that it had been placed by them. That would not be a reasonable or logical claim.

I don't doubt that the Houthis have been given such mines so as to enable them to 'close' the Straights of Mandeb in the event that Iran decides to 'close' Hormuz. That is not at all to say that Iran planted those mines this month and last. I don't think they did.

The choice of targets is interesting if non-random. A Japanese tanker while the Japanese PM is on a peaceful visit to Iran against the wishes of The Empire; and a tanker owned by a firm which was the leading provider of tankers during the Iran/Iraq war when the US was actively co-operating with their Iraqi pal to shut down Iran's income stream from exports of crude from Kharg.

Finally who wins from the situation?

The warmongers. The usual suspects for a false flag attack. Bolton and the rest of the crazies in Chump's employ. The ones who still bear a grudge against the Iranian people for electing PM Mossadeq and for booting out The Empire's pet dictator who was emplaced against the will of the Iranian people by a UKUSA joint venture between SIS and CIA.

The fact that the usual SIS mouthpieces, such as Bellingcat Frank Gardner and Con Coghlin, are being used to emanate the UKUSA line that it woz Iran wot dunnit, is an indicator that something is wrong with the official conspiracy theory.

The Houthis also benefit of course, but for them a strike against the economic well-being of their Saudi and Emirati kleptocratic tormentors can only be a pin-prick unless sustained over a long enough period to do serious damage to the enemy, so they don't "win".

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I think I'm happy with the combination of views we've reached.
The mines were likely Iranian-supplied (explains the removal details)
We have no clue who placed them; could have been Houthis, or almost anyone acting on behalf of almost anyone.
The US warmongers, certainly in terms of the Senate votes, seem to have got the most out of this in the immediate aftermath. Who wins, of course, may have been different if all or none of the mines had worked, so I think it's difficult to be sure of anything based on thinking Cui Bono about what actually happened.

The tankers targeted are worth further investigation. When the mines were placed? If the tankers were in sequence trailing each other, then they may have been just two convenient targets, and not selected for ownership at all. I do not know the timer limit on these weapons. Most people's agendas would have been served by any tankers being hit. It's also worth working out whether damage or destruction were the intended results.

As to biting the hand that feeds you...

May 7, 1973 - meeting between Brezhnev, Gromyko and Kissinger in Zavidovo, Russia.

Brezhnev: Let us turn to an easy question now, the Middle East. Let us send Dr. Kissinger to the Middle East for two weeks.

Gromyko: President Nixon and I will write out a brief lucid instruction, and it is done with.

Kissinger: You know the story of the scorpion who wanted to cross the Suez Canal. He asked a camel if he could ride on his back. The camel said, “If I do and you sting me, I will be dead.” The scorpion said, “I will drown also, so you have every guarantee.” So the camel took the scorpion on his back and they started across. In the middle of the Canal the scorpion stung the camel and as they drowned the camel asked, “what did you do this for?” The scorpion said, “you forgot, this is the Middle East.”

[Rwy in Sight]

The mines were likely Iranian-supplied (explains the removal details)
More to follow later I am at a pub hence not enough time: does that mean that a police bomb squad removing a bomb is a part of bombing organization?

They were the closer one to do the job.

The question remains who benefits from it? If someone says the US kindly elaborate.

[Slasher]

I couldn't care less about the ME anymore, but oil prices aren't going to go up as the USA is only partially dependent on ME oil now. By end of 2020 it'll be a nett exporter. This is what OPEC has been **** itself over the past year and a half.

The Houtis are nutcases pure and simple - shia Yemenis who allege themselves to Iran. Whether or not Iran ordered the bombings is one thing, trying to disrupt the market in order to force higher prices is another.

[Rwy in Sight]

I couldn't care less about the ME anymore, but oil prices aren't going to go up as the USA is only partially dependent on ME oil now. By end of 2020 it'll be a nett exporter. This is what OPEC has been **** itself over the past year and a half.

The Houtis are nutcases pure and simple - shia Yemenis who allege themselves to Iran. Whether or not Iran ordered the bombings is one thing, trying to disrupt the market in order to force higher prices is another.

Nice point about USA being a net exporter. A side note how a Trump being replaced at the White House would impact the oil production in the USA?

Would Houtis dare doing anything not authorized by the Iranians?

[Slasher]

My understanding at the time I was in the ME RiS was that each individual ground ops by the Houtis needn't be approved by Iran in its proxy brawl with Sandy Arabia, but attacks on shipping and/or missile attacks against SA targets (airports such as JED and RUH e.g.) need direct thumbs up from Tehran particularly with timing.

As for a 'crat taking over the WH in 2020 that's a tough one. My own view is it'd depend on how much money the top echelon of Dem socialists can personally pocket out of US oil exports.

It's quite possible we could be barking up the wrong tree here. Have a squizz at this. Plum and Fox might also find this an interesting viewpoint:





I'm not implying Israel is behind the attacks but...

[Undried Plum]

The Gulf of Trumpkin Incident seems to have fallen a bit flat.

Most of the world smells a rat.