Middle East

The U.S. Shouldn't Rush to War With Iran Over Saudi Oilfield Attack

Open warfare between Iran and Saudi Arabia would be far worse than this weekend's attacks.

|

In the wake of an apparent drone attack targeting oilfields on the Arabian Peninsula, Congress should do everything it can to avoid getting America involved in a potential conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The attack on the Abqaiq oil facility appears to have been carried out with drones operated by Houthi rebels in Yemen. They targeted a refinery owned by Saudi Aramco, the state-owned oil monopoly. The attack is likely to cut Saudi Arabian oil production in half, reducing global supply of crude oil by about 5 percent, The Wall Street Journal reported, raising the possibility of higher gasoline prices. It did not take long for Saudi and U.S. officials—including President Donald Trump—to pin blame for the Saturday night attack on Iran, which has provided support and aid to the Houthi rebels.

On Monday night, NBC News reported that the attack was launched from within Iran, citing three anonymous sources familiar with American intelligence reports.

The question, then, becomes what America should do next.

In a tweet on Sunday, Trump gave the impression that he was willing to let the Saudis decide how America would react.

That response raises obvious constitutional concerns. Even if Saudi Arabia and Iran were heading for a military confrontation, it's not immediately clear how that conflict would jeopardize American national security. If there is a reason for the U.S. to be involved in a regional war in the Middle East, the Trump administration should make that argument to Congress and proceed only after Congress has approved military action.

"The whole situation is more complicated than the war hawks in town would have you believe," says Chris Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. "It's simply not true that the Iranians call the tune and the Houthis dance. It's more complicated than that."

Indeed, the Houthi rebels have been fighting a Saudi-backed regime in Yemen for several years—a conflict that has turned into a brutal civil war that has killed an estimated 50,000 people; while at least 50,000 more are estimated to have died in a famine triggered by the conflict, though exact numbers of deaths are difficult to ascertain. Earlier this year, Trump vetoed a bill that would have ended American military involvement in the Yemeni civil war.

But in a follow-up tweet on Monday, Trump compared Iran's denial of involvement in the oil facility attacks to what the president called "a very big lie" regarding the downing of a U.S. drone earlier this year. At that time, Iran claimed the drone had entered its airspace, while the U.S. claimed it had not. Shortly afterward, Trump ordered a military strike against Iran before changing his mind at the very last second.

That moment aside, the Trump administration has seemed willing—and eager, at times—to start a war with Iran. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has pitched lawmakers on the idea that the 2001 Authorization of Military Force (AUMF)—passed in the wake of 9/11 to permit the U.S. to attack Al Qaeda—allows the U.S. to attack Iran without further congressional approval. And just last week, senior State Department advisor Brian Hook wrote an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal arguing Iran "is effectively extending its borders, enlarging its sphere of influence, and launching lethal attacks against rivals" via the Houthis.

But if Trump is going to remind the American public about the lies that Iranian leaders have told, it seems only fair to also point out that Saudi Arabian crown prince Mohammed bin Salman has told a few lies himself. Salman, known by"MBS," apparently ordered the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi last year—and then lied about the murder for weeks after it took place at the Saudi consulate in Turkey. Trump sided with bin Salman during the controversy.

It's that sort of knee-jerk support for Saudi Arabia within American political ranks that makes a U.S. military response troublingly likely. To the extent that duplicitous Saudi behavior enters into the equation at all, it seems to be quickly pushed aside in favor of backing a long-time ally merely because it has been a long-time ally—in the way that Sen. Chris Coons (D–Conn.) did on Monday morning:

Even if members of Congress are cheering for a war with Iran, Trump should have to put the matter before them for a formal vote. And lawmakers should be measured in their approach. If you think a single attack that took 5 percent of the world's oil supply offline temporarily is a problem, you should also consider what a full-fledged conflict among some of the world's biggest oil-producing countries would mean.

"At a minimum, we should want to know more information before doing anything. Don't jump to conclusions," Preble says he would advise members of Congress. "And then, even once you've established the facts, you want to make sure that whatever action you're being asked to take is likely to make the situation better."

American involvement in a Saudi-Iran war would do little to protect the national security or economic interests of Americans. Congress should do everything in its power to avoid it.

Advertisement

NEXT: Saturday Night Live Fires New Cast Member Shane Gillis for Using Offensive Language

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Anything that deprives the Saudi royals of power would be good.

    1. The truth finally comes out. Rev is not a Rev, he is a Mullah, Alkikrlun.

    2. Yeah, I heard a lot of people say the same things about the Shah, Hussein, Assad, and Qadaffi. They were all proven by events to be idiots.

    3. As much as I dislike the Saudi nobility personally, I have to say that the majority of their potential replacements are significantly worse.

    4. Arty is pro Iran, anti freedom, anti American, and anti human.

      1. People have to cling to something.

      2. I agree, shitlord. The best way to support freedom and America is to support a Saudi crown prince who jails and tortures women for wanting to drive a car. I can’t think of anymore more patriotic than that. Afterall the world went to hell when women were allowed to drive, especially those asian bitches.

  2. Why is it assumed that Saudi Arabia won’t go to war on their own with Iran without American troop involvement?


    American involvement in a Saudi-Iran war would do little to protect the national security or economic interests of Americans.

    Last I checked, oil and gas prices do in fact have a pretty direct economic result for Americans. I’m not saying that’s a good reason to go to war, I’m just saying that if SA did decide to go to war without us it would probably not a be a good thing for global oil prices, and it would probably drag out a lot longer.

    Of course, this assumes that Russia wouldn’t engage Saudi Arabia on behalf of Iran I suppose.


    If you think a single attack that took 5 percent of the world’s oil supply offline temporarily is a problem, you should also consider what a full-fledged conflict among some of the world’s biggest oil-producing countries would mean.

    It should be noted that this could happen regardless of Americans intervention, or lack thereof.

    1. Because when they screamed for help in 1990, guess who came running?

      You get more of whatever behavior you reward.

      1. So if America doesn’t get involved, this means Saudi Arabia won’t go to war…right? That appears to be the foregone conclusion.

        It might be correct for all I know, I’m hardly an expert on the Saudi’s appetite for war. It just seems strange that a kingdom wouldn’t go to war over being bombed.

        1. They’re already at war with the Houthis. The oil field strike is just part of that.

          1. “It’s simply not true that the Iranians call the tune and the Houthis dance. It’s more complicated than that.”

            As complicated as the Houthis receiving part of a palette of cash from Ben Rhodes and his buddy The Imperator.

    2. **Why is it assumed that Saudi Arabia won’t go to war on their own with Iran without American troop involvement?**

      Because the Yemen war has shown that they’re incompetent at it. Armour without infantry, infantry without artillery support, air strikes on random locations. The number of tanks lost because of a lack of supporting infantry alone says that money can buy you fancy toys, but it doesn’t buy you any talent at using them effectively.

      The Saudi’s much prefer to have foreigners do the fighting for them because they’re not used to having to do anything for themselves.

      1. The Saudis hire foreigners to do almost everything in Saudi Arabia. They aren’t just incompetent militarily, they’re just plane incompetent.

        A Sunni-Shia mass conflict is almost inevitable, so it may as well be now, and if the US is smart, we won’t get involved. However, with MBS and Netanyahu so desperate to have someone fight their fight with Iran, it’s hard to believe that we won’t go to war.

        FDR said that he liked Joseph Stalin and wanted to help him. We sent billions in “lend-lease” and “helped” a worse mass murderer than Hitler. History could repeat itself if we help MBS and end up with a slaughter of Shiites committed by a nation dedicated to the same philosophy that drove the 9-11 suicide bombers.

        1. Make that “just plain incompetent”.

          1. Although they can’t fly worth a damn either, unless they want to crash into buildings.

      2. I remember reading somewhere that the Saudi military was sort of a reward system for the upper class and royal relatives. The officers were not really military men. They were just getting their dashing uniforms so they could have that photo on the wall once they got out. At least that was the perception of American soldiers in the first gulf war.

      3. One thing their ineffectiveness in Yemen demonstrated is that in 2001-2003, we really did only have three choices:

        1) Keep troops in Saudi Arabia and provoke more terrorist attacks (Khobar Towers, African Embassies, USS Cole, 9/11).

        2) Let Saddam Hussein march his army south and conquer Saudi Arabia.

        3) Overthrow Saddam Hussein.

    3. Iran’s attacks arent a tax like the tariffs are…

      1. That’s true, but I’m not sure how it’s relevant.

        1. Neither does he.

    4. Why is it assumed that Saudi Arabia won’t go to war on their own with Iran without American troop involvement?

      They would lose.

    5. Some of the others have said it already, but because Iran would kick their ass. Saudis have more airpower and fancier toys, but Iran has a clear land advantage and a better conditioned army. The Saudis prefer getting other people to do stuff for them while Iran has been preparing for trouble with America, or Iraq, or the Saudis (or all of the above) for a long time.

    6. The Saudis thought they could subjugate the Houthis in a matter of weeks, and four years later, their failure is only becoming more obvious.

      And Yemen does indeed have an advanced industrial sector, however beleaguered by war, and highly educated and motivated personnel to man it. All the Iranians really have to do to aid Yemeni drone and missile development is send a few documents by email.

  3. The question, then, becomes what America should do next.

    That’s the first question.

    The zeroeth question is why anyone would believe any intelligence agency.

    1. “Saudi Arabia Desperate to Raise the Price of Oil Ahead of ARAMCO IPO.”

    2. “”The zeroeth question is why anyone would believe any intelligence agency.””

      I guess it depends on if someone wants it to be true or not. Many people believed them blindly regarding Trump and Russia.

  4. >>appears to have been carried out with drones

    when everything is Wag the Dog, everything is Wag the Dog

    1. @realDonaldTrump….. @BarackObama will attack Iran in order to get re-elected…..Jan 17, 2012

  5. Does ‘locked and loaded’ = ‘boots on the ground’?

    The libertarian in me says we absolutely shouldn’t initiate aggression and shouldn’t be involved in foreign aggression needlessly but, at the same time, the libertarian in me says that if the Saudis plunk down currency for material support, there’s no reason why we shouldn’t sell (more of) it to them.

    And yes, I defended Austria’s “right” to sell rifles to the Iranians during the Iraq war.

    1. there’s no reason why we shouldn’t sell (more of) it to them

      Who is “we”? Are you an arms dealer?

      1. Given the US government’s control over arms sales, as a voter, he decides which slate of directors controls the world’s biggest arms dealer.

        1. And while I certainly would prefer it otherwise, any wavering between me personally, me as a citizen of an elected government, and me as a libertarian is a bit moot.

          There’s no libertarian principle at the personal or national level that says you can’t sell material support to people who’ve been attacked. It may not be the wisest and most non-interventionist position but it’s not a strict no-go for libertarians AFAICT. Certainly a case could be made for/against a President selling arms to a rebel group or mutually belligerent organizations, but a hostile foreign power attacking a benign or sympathetic nation?

          1. “There’s no libertarian principle at the personal or national level that says you can’t sell material support to people who’ve been attacked.”

            Isn’t there an NAP that should stop you from providing aid to those intent on doing harm? Wasn’t it Plato who argued the immorality of returning the knife to its enraged owner, despite the knife being indisputably his property?

    2. Absent foreign intervention how large a force would be required to invade and overthrow Saudi Arabia? Who in S.A. is really willing to die to protect the House of Saud?

      I’m thinking the Iranians could do it with a Division or three (certainly less than 50,000 men.)

      1. Who in S.A. is really willing to die to protect the House of Saud?

        Against an invading Iran?

        1. Against an invading anyone.

          Are you twelve or something?

      2. Yeah. Gulf War One was actually fought by the US partially because the Saudis paid us. We actually turned a profit on that little adventure. The Saudis knew that Iraq would use Kuwait as a launch pad for an attack on Saudi Arabia, and they knew they couldn’t stop the Iraqis. And Iran fought Iraq to a standstill. Except for Syria, there is no longer any credible military force in the middle east except Israel and Iran, and Syria only has a halfway decent military because of Iranian and Russian support.
        The House of Saud gained control of Arabia because of the support from the Wahhabis, but this ain’t 1918, and the irregulars aren’t fighting a dying empire still using 19th century tactics and armaments.
        Without US support, the House that Saud Built comes crashing down. Is that in our best interest? I’d guess, that if Iran didn’t invade, then the radical Wahhabis would take control, and then we’d have a radical shi’ite state squared off against a radical Shia state. I’m against a pax Americana, but the options are few.

        1. Duh, “…and then we’d have a radical shi’ite state squared off against a radical Shia Sunni state.

          1. Also, for anybody who doesn’t know, the wahhabism version of Sunni Islam is the official religion of Saudi Arabia, and closely related to the fundamentalist version of sunni islam followed by Al Qaeda. Shia Islam is the official religion of Iran. (Iraq is also mostly shi’ite, but Saddam and the ruling class under his rule were Sunni.
            So there, that clears everything up.

        2. It is time to pull out of the middle east. Let them all destroy themselves. It’s what they have been doing for centuries, and long before the discovery and the need for oil. Undoubtedly, much of the oil supplies will be taken off line for a period, but this will hardly affect the west since America is self sufficient and most of Europe gets it’s oil from Russia. I see no reason for any western lives to be lost in what is ultimately as sectarian war between two different factions of Islam.
          The west is finished with it’s sectarian Christian wars between Catholics and Protestants. The Arab nations however seem to thrive on war. It’s just ridiculous that we in the west seem eager to involve ourselves in these wars. We should sit back and allow them to bomb each other back to the stone age where most of there beliefs belong.

          1. It’s China, East Asia, and Africa who still need ME oil. Let’s toss them the tar baby and get out.

      3. Kind of gets into why KSA were using Sudanese mercenaries in Yemen, which, among other latent effects, got more than a few Saudi junior officers fragged by the men they commanded.

      4. Absent foreign intervention how large a force would be required to invade and overthrow Saudi Arabia?

        Say the Saudi Arabia wanted to buy the largest and most effective drone army in the world, to whom would they turn? If it’s us do we refuse to sell because of property rights and non-aggression?

        I certainly agree we absolutely should not put boots on the ground but that’s not really how wars are fought anymore.

        1. that’s not really how wars are fought anymore.

          No, but that’s still how they’re won.

    3. And sell some to Iran. Let them kill each other for all I care.

  6. “America First” TrumpfenFuhrer added WAY much fuel to this fire when Emperor Donald pulled the USA out of the multilateral agreement with Iran in the first place! WHAT will it take to get Der TrumpfenFuhrer to put His Emperor-dick back in His pants, and be reasonable? I’m not saying “peace at any price”; I’m saying, “America First, all other nations go to Hell” is a ridiculously expensive policy, and the chickens are coming home to roost! I know that many of us like to eat shit, believe you me… But chicken shit is NOT one of my fave menu items! Chicken-hawk shits sucks too, IMHO! Peace, Dudes and Dudettes!!! Impeach The Donald might be THE best step towards peace!

    1. I’m saying, “America First, all other nations go to Hell” is a ridiculously expensive policy

      I guess the previous foreign policy choices must have been cheap then.

      Impeach The Donald might be THE best step towards peace!

      That’s just … dumb.

      1. Stupid, non-essential wars are what is “dumb”. We’ve had WAAAY too many of them already, and they have ALL been filthy expensive!

        “I guess the previous foreign policy choices must have been cheap then.”

        How far back in time do we have to go, to a point where the USA was truly at peace with the world? Clearly, at least to the late 1990s! We haven’t even TRIED peace lately!

        1. No offense, but you actually want to eat shit so I’m gonna ignore what you think. No hard feelings.

        2. And impeaching Trump would mean trying peace? Sorry, that’s dumb.

          1. And hey man, I’m not trying to be a dick to you here. You know what else was dumb?

            Donald pulled the USA out of the multilateral agreement with Iran in the first place

            Very dumb.

            1. Fuck. That wasn’t clear at all. It was very dumb to pull out of that agreement.

              1. The agreement that iran was openly violating?

                1. Citations please! Iran WAS living up to them, until Der TrumpfenFuher found invisible-ink provisions about not testing missiles! WHY do you think that, among other parties to the agreement, not a ONE of them agrees with Der TrumpfenFuher?

                  1. Squirrely, you’re too fucking stupid and dishonest to waste time debating. Maybe you and Tony should enter into a suicide pact. Plenty of Drano to go round for you bitches.

                  2. The random capitalized words really make this comment seem well-grounded and not crazy.

                2. They weren’t really violating it, because there was no need to. The ageement did nothing to stop Iran from acquiring nukes, it merely forced Iran to acquire nukes slower.

        3. How many wars did your passive Democrats start again? Was ww2 made better or worse due to appeasement. We know you sont know much sqrsly, but think you can answer those.

          1. “We know you sont know much sqrsly…”

            We squirrels at least know how to use spell-check!

            1. “We squirrels at least know how to use spell-check!”

              “SQRLSY One
              September.16.2019 at 12:25 pm
              Well OK then, I suppose I did pustulate ”

              Apparently you don’t shiteater.

              1. “Ferd”

                The shit eating retard can’t even get a four letter name right.

        4. Christ, you are one dumb asshole. Have you been living in a fucking cave in the last 3 years. Name one single war Trump has started and I will give you 7 started under Obama. The sheer hypocrisy of giving Obama a peace prize makes a mockery of the Nobel institution.
          Trump has brought North and South Korea closer to peace than they have been in over 50 years. Several time he has attempted to bring troops home from Afghanistan and Syria. He is the first president in 50 years who has even attempted to de-escalate America’s involvement in foreign wars.

      2. What makes you think President Pence won’t give the neocons everything they want on day one?

    2. Nice to see you took some time off from eating actual human shit.

    3. Hey you’ve got some turd on the corner of your mouth.

    4. No offense but you actually want to eat shit so I’m gonna ignore your advice. No hard feelings.

    5. “…TrumpfenFuhrer…”

      Do ‘tards spend all day coming up with nick-names which would embarrass grammar-school kids?
      Grow up if you want to be engaged as an adult.

      1. “Grow up if you want to be engaged as an adult.”

        Nah Gah Happen.

        Forget, Sevo, it’s Squirrelsy-Town.

      2. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/donald-trump-not-well/597640/

        In light of this, what do YOU propose should be an accurate and honest label of Der TrumpfenFuhrer? Narcissist? Egotist? Megalomaniac? Arrogant, self-centered asshole? All of the above?

        Inquiring minds want to KNOW, dammit!

        1. So you post some two-bit amateur psych as a defense for your infantile efforts and ask to be forgiven your idiocy?
          Fuck off.

          1. Like the article says, if your car coughs up giant clouds of smoke, makes loud knocking sounds, and bleeds oil profusely onto your driveway, you don’t need a PhD in mechanical engineering to know that your cars is WAAAY unwell. Similarly, it doesn’t take a MD psychiatrist to know that The Donald is unwell. HE is the center of the universe, can NOT admit error, and doesn’t acknowledge the existence of NON-zero-sum games! He feels that he MUST kick someone else’s ass, good and hard, to “win”! The is NO other way of “winning”, in Donald’s mind! And this is NOT a way to “win” friends, and we WILL pay the price in blood and treasure!

            1. Right but you want to eat shit.

            2. SQRLSY One
              September.16.2019 at 9:34 pm
              “Like the article says, if your car coughs up giant clouds of smoke, makes loud knocking sounds, and bleeds oil profusely onto your driveway, you don’t need a PhD in mechanical engineering to know that your cars is WAAAY unwell. Similarly, it doesn’t take a MD psychiatrist to know that The Donald is unwell.”

              No, it takes a fucking imbecilic victim of TDS to cherry-pick personality traits and thereby claim ‘disease’ while suffering their own.
              Do ‘tards spend the other part of their days searching for bullshit claims and then trying to justify them to non-‘tards? Try the old chestnut of ‘Bush drove the car into a ditch’ if you want an automotive analogy of bullshit-equivalence.
              I can hope that TDS is fatal in your case. Fuck off, you pathetic piece of shit.

              1. Well, isn’t psychology the next best thing to an actual science?

    6. Yah, dude. I’m sure impeaching the US prez will do wonders for Mideast peace. The whole world will be all like, yeah dude, pass that blunt, we cool.

      Haha.

    7. “Impeach The Donald might be THE best step towards peace!”
      Yes, so the world can return to the status quo of pacifist administrations like the Bushs, Clintons and Obama… wait a second.

      Aside from Carter, has there been a less militaristic president in the last 100 years?

  7. “The attack on the Abqaiq oil facility appears to have been carried out with drones operated by Houthi rebels in Yemen.”

    That is still debatable. No one should take Reason’s word on such facts without good proof.

    1. Well, the Houthis claimed responsibility and there’s no good reason to doubt them.

      1. Yeah, there are serious reasons to doubt them. Have you seen the satellite photos of the damage to the refineries? Those were extremely accurate strikes on very specific parts of the sites.

        The distance from Yemen to those sites is also very far, likely well beyond the range of any sort of cruise missile they might field.

        (Can we please stop calling these drone strikes? Yes cruise missiles are a form of drone, but isn’t a goal of journalism to convey as much accurate information as possible.)

        1. Is there physical evidence that there were cruise missiles involved?

          1. ?

            You are kidding, right?

            What else do you suppose could cause that sort of damage that far into SA?

            1. (Which only points up the problem of using the term ‘drone.’ It leaves the technically ignorant with the impression that these sorts of attacks are/can be carried out with the little radio controlled helicopters they sell at the electronics store.)

            2. That far in? Abqaiq is like 20 miles from the coast. So unless you have some pics of cruise missile scraps to show us, so far there’s no evidence that it was cruise missiles. I’m not ruling out the possibility entirely, but it’s just pure speculation to say that it was.

              1. ” Abqaiq is like 20 miles from the coast.”

                So you are saying the Yemeni Navy launched the attack?

                Do you even know how many separate targets were hit? What sort of vessel would have carried that many weapons?

                1. Oh come on Tommy, your whipping a dead horse at this point.

                2. Arguing this with Juice is a waste of time.

            3. And not show up on any radars or whatever defense is there.

              Plus the attack was extremely accurate and successful.

              The list of countries able to produce that kind of hardware who would want to attack Saudi Arabia and drive up oil prices is short, only one actually.

              1. Hitting the Saudis where it hurts would definitely be what the Houthis in Yemen want.

                1. Of course and it is possible that some or all of the weapons were launched from Yemen. It is not a good idea to rely on MSM because we don’t really know but that was some damn fine shootin’ and it just doesn’t make sense that the Houthis did this on their own.

                  Iran reportedly has some first class long range cruise missiles capable of flying low to avoid detection. Very few countries are capable of producing those. It really doesn’t matter who pushed the button.

                  1. Indeed it was a very finely measured strike intended to disrupt, but not outright destroy Saudi production capacity. It really could have been much worse. And, if you really are the Houthi doing this, wouldn’t you want maximum bang for your ostensibly limited buck. Wouldn’t you seem to maximize your terminal effect?

                    Why hold back, unless you really are not the ones cAlling the shot?

                    I’m not sure what, if any US response should be, but no matter what it is beyond ignorant to pretend this was anything other than an Iranian controlled action.

              2. Most of the radar data they have so far shows entry from the northern border, not southern. Juice, get a map and let us know how to explain that one.

            4. There are things other than cruise missiles and hobby quad-copters that might have been used.

              1. They apparently have these: https://www.janes.com/article/89746/yemeni-rebels-unveil-cruise-missile-long-range-uavs
                I don’t know what they are supposed to be called.

                1. Those would be called…

                  cruise missiles.

                  The problem is that none of those weapons have the range to reach the targeted refinery from the Yemeni border.

        2. Let me tell you this. A large number of refinery vessels are more or less bombs without igniters. Other vessels with pyrophoric catalysts are bombs with igniters but no oxygen.

          If you know where to put a hole, you can have Hindenburg-level effects with a single bullet.

          To compare, the ITC fire that burned in my city for weeks was caused by an overheated pump and insufficient firewater. Think what could happen if you had someone actually trying to break stuff.

          1. All it takes is one good shot into that two meter exhaust port and that’s all she wrote.

      2. We all knew than this was inevitable once the Houthis broke away from…the Blowfish.

        Sorry.

        1. You’re worse than the shit eater.

      3. Yes there is, they were about 95% likely to be a proxy for Iran, they don’t have the capability of complex drone strikes unless Iran gave it to them and trained them on its usage

        1. And also used serious satellite data to develop the target specific target list.

          1. By using serious Google Earth instead of the regular one?

            1. How much do they pay you for your service?

          1. Nothing you are shown would convince you. You apparently believe a terrorist group is truthful and ignore all other evidence so far presented.

            1. What the hell is wrong with you? Juice is not making an unreasonable request. You and ThomasD and a few others seem ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that the Houthis are lying and Iran is behind it all. I mean, I can understand how this is a plausible line of conjecture, but how do you all come to this knowledge with some sense of utter certainty? Do you have a secret source inside the CIA or something? Whatever source convinced you that Iran was absolutely behind these attacks, would you mind sharing it?

              1. I’m glad you made time for us in between jacking it to child rape videos, and moderating your NAMBLA cell’s chat board.

                So how are things up in Toronto?

        2. I don’t doubt that Iran supported this at all. Just like how we know al Qaeda was supported by Saudi Arabia.

        3. And SA are a proxy for America. Indeed, America were a proxy for Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war. I see no reason why America has the right to condemn Iran for being a proxy when America and Russia have been guilty of the same behaviour over the last 50 years.
          Trump’s best course of action would be to get the hell out of the middle east and let these countries destroy themselves. Why would anyone who respects their armed forces want to sent their troops into the middle of a meat grinder and senselessly waste their lives over a sectarian war which has been raging for centuries. America does not need any oil from the middle east and neither does Europe since they get their oil from Russia.

  8. Americans should do nothing. This is Saudi Arabia’s fight. Sell them some tanks or something.

    1. Yeah, my personal stance on the matter is to stay the hell out of it and sell guns to the guys we think are marginally less evil.

    2. The US should provide whatever support the Saudis need to kick the Mullah’s ass short of …
      NOTHING.
      Fuck the Persians.

      1. Stop wearing so much damn cologne should be in the terms of the eventual peace treaty. And, the only music allowed must be sung in English. I keed, I keed. The Persians have a long and noble history, one important to the modern world. They also wear too much cologne.

        1. Well, there goes your chance at an SNL audition.

    3. The US is on the petrodollar they literally have us over a barrel…of oil.

    4. I too would prefer we let the Saudi’s deal with this and act only in a support capacity.

  9. coming from the writer that calls every 1/2% down move in the stock a “crash”, just shows him again to have the intellect of a cod fish

  10. Did Trump just admit to outsourcing American foreign policy to the Saudis?

    1. So you’re saying you want him to storm in there whether the Saudis like it or not?

      1. It’s Eric. Trump will be wrong no matter what he does.

    2. I saw Trump claiming that every time the price of gasoline spikes he just gets on the phone to the Crown Prince and asks him to open the spigots a little and the Crown Prince does it. So if Trump is helping run Saudi Arabia’s foreign policy I suppose it’s only fair that Saudi Arabia’s helping run ours. Trump and the Crown Prince are best buds like Trump and Lil Kim, so it’s all cool.

      1. “…like Trump and Lil Kim…”

        Grow up.

        1. He won’t. These people say the most asinine things.

    3. Nixon did that in ’72.

    4. No. He admitted wanting to have the input of the country actually attacked before deciding on a response to the attack. Nothing in his statement remotely implies we can’t say “no”.

  11. Sad news boys; we are already at war with Iran.
    But since the last numbered war, no one calls them “war” anymore.
    Like with China, we use dollars, not bullets.

    1. I guess those pallets full of hundreds of millions in $100 bills we sent them failed to detonate.

  12. I divested of all oil-related interests recently, but this would have been good for me. It should be noted that the Houthis have a goal that is more democratic and free than that of the House of Saud.

    1. Are the Houthis related to the Hortons? As in, “Horton Hears a Who”? And then, is that story, in turn, in any way related to “Horton Hires a Ho”? WHERE on this Government-Almighty-forsaken globe do the Hortons live, and, besides hearing whos and hiring hos, WHAT is it that they WANT?

      WHY am I the only one here asking the basic, fundamental, vitally essential questions, dammit?!?!

      1. Thanks for the laugh.

      2. Why are you also the only one who openly discusses his desire to consume excrement?

    2. “I divested of all oil-related interests recently”

      Tony’s pimp made him stop using lube.

      1. When the price of oil is going up. Of course he would divest.

    3. Your oil related interests? So you changed to a different kind of ass lube?

  13. Ahh, come on, guys. Its been, like 2 or 3 years since we entered into a new war in the Middle East! Afghanistan is winding down, we’re done in Iraq… if we don’t start a war with Iran we won’t have bit a handful of small conflicts in the levant, and then how are we going to kill brown people and our own solders and spend billions of dollars (more) that we don’t have. And what about the children defense contractors? Oh, won’t somebody think of the children defense contractors?

  14. Fuck Saudi Arabia.

  15. We should be dropping cluster bombs and FAE’s on Tehran for 444 days.

  16. “NBC News reported that the attack was launched from within Iran, citing three anonymous sources familiar with American intelligence reports. The question, then, becomes what America should do next.”

    I think the first question is how much do you trust NBC News and anonymous sources familiar with American intelligence reports.

    1. Ah hah! It was Russia!

  17. False flag the Saudis did it themselves.

    1. C’mon, go for it! It didn’t happen! The pictures are fake!

  18. Saudis are going to need to respond to this somehow. They could just launch a major attack against the Houthis.

    What the US should do is focus on the gulf and protecting shipping. That might mean more ships capable of escort duty, defensive measures such as advanced radar and anti missile batteries,

    When the tanker wars were going on Reagan had all the tankers reflagged as US. This gave the country the legal ground to respond with force if challenged. Might come to that. Hope not.

    1. We don’t need that oil anymore. Have them all reflagged as Belgian.

      1. The Belgians are a precious resource. They have the greatest repository of the world’s waffles.

        1. Yes but they have not yet discovered the synergy between those waffles and fried chicken.

  19. I don’t see a need to rush into anything; neither does POTUS Trump, and he has said as much. There are no grounds I can see for the US to strike Iran – yet. That said, I would suggest using the criteria stated by Caspar Weinberger as a reasonable frame of reference.

    One, the United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved. Well, for better or worse, the KSA is our ally. Don’t trust those bastards at all. But they were attacked by somebody, and that was an act of war.

    Two, U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed. I don’t see a need for troops. We weren’t attacked.

    Three, U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives. Well now, isn’t that the big question? What exactly would we be trying to accomplish? I just don’t see a rationale here for the US to do anything – yet. The game changes if it can be proven that Iran launched the attack from their soil.
    Four, the relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
    Five, U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a “reasonable assurance” of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress. POTUS Trump will never have the support of Team D; this is axiomatic. Given the absolute craziness we have seen in three Team D debates, does anyone think any of those Team D candidates will ever support going to war with anyone – ever? The country is divided and those Iranian bastards know it. And they are taking advantage of the situation.

    Six, the commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort. I don’t see a need for troops. We weren’t attacked.

    The more interesting question to me is what would happen if POTUS Trump went to Congress for an AUMF, Congress declines to give it, and POTUS Trump attacks Iran anyway? I cannot think of an instance in our history where a POTUS went to the Congress for a declaration of war (or in the modern parlance, an AUMF) where the Congress declined it. One thing that Mr. Boehm did not make clear – are we legally bound by a treaty we signed with KSA and then was ratified by the Congress?

  20. An attack on Saudi Arabia and Aramco is none of our business and my our, I mean the USA. However, it appears Iran wants a war, so we should prepare for one in the region. A war is likely the only thing that can unite the Iranian population with the fascist regime running the country. It would be nice for the fascist regime to fall but what would it replace it? Probably another Islamist fascist regime. Let Europe, China, and Japan fight the war; they need the oil, we don’t. We can, however, make some good money on arms sales.

    1. TRussotto.com
      September.16.2019 at 9:56 pm
      “An attack on Saudi Arabia and Aramco is none of our business and my our, I mean the USA.”
      Hear, hear!

      “… It would be nice for the fascist regime to fall but what would it replace it? Probably another Islamist fascist regime. Let Europe, China, and Japan fight the war; they need the oil, we don’t.”
      Indeed. Let all those folks pay for their own battles; I’m tired of doing so.

  21. Why This Open warfare between Iran and Saudi Arabia. This leads to only destruction. I think all nation should show their peace against each other.
    Regards;
    isaimini

    1. The open warfare is because the Iranian regime is pure evil.

  22. And I agree with pretty much everyone else here – don’t get involved in any war between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

    Trump should stop selling weapons to Saudi Arabia. Let the Saudis starve the Yemenis, and now evidently kill Iranians, with someone else’s weapons.

    1. Wouldn’t it be interesting if the Saudis started buying Israeli weapons instead?

      Iron Dome would be perfect for this sort of thing.

      I could just picture the IDF Sargent passing out assignments after graduation.

      “ ok you are are going to Tel Aviv, and Ari you are assigned in Haifa, and for you Eilat”

      “What about me sir.”

      “Oh um Yossi let’s see here… Mecca”

      “Mecca…Mecca… But but … Mecca I mean there’s no beaches, no women, you can’t even buy a beer. Shit”

      1. Well, that really would be something.
        If Iron Dome could create a rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Israel, that would be very weird indeed.

        1. There is one of sorts. It is at arms distance however there are things going on under the surface. They have a common enemy and very little to conflict about.

        2. Think about it. Iran has influence in Shia Iraq. It has forces in Syria. It has Hezbolla as a proxy in Lebanon and Syria. Who fights Hezbolla in Syria and stands as a counter in Lebanon? Israel.

          Does Israel threaten Arab states who have a truce such as Egypt and Jordan? Not at all.

          On the other side of the Middle East is Saudi and the gulf states. To them Iran is attempting another Lebanon in Yemen. To face the threat of up to 100,000 missiles and a now battle hardened force on the other front is Israel.

          So there is good reason to cooperate.

      2. I’m pretty sure Jews still wouldn’t be allowed in Mecca. Don’t you have to be a Muslim even to enter the city?

        1. Don’t you have to be a Muslim even to enter the city?

          Without permission, yes. There’s still a bypass. It’s, obviously, not a bulletproof mandate, but my understanding is that it’s significantly less porous than the US’s southern (or northern) border.

          1. “Without permission, yes.”

            Richard Burton did it without permission. Had himself circumcised for the occasion.

        2. Well I’m kidding of course. It is possible for Jews to go to Saudi Arabia say on business but one is advised not to be “too Jewish”. Israelis or anyone with Israel stamp on passport are denied entry.

          Rumors are that there is increased cooperation between Israel and the Saudis on matters of intel which implies that in select cases there has been quiet travel involving some officials but who knows.

  23. The Iranians can now be correctly considered insane if they did indeed attack Saudi Arabia.
    The Saudi’s have a strong enough military (and the money to purchase any military hardware they want) to give Iran a pants down spanking.
    Just when you thought the Iranians couldn’t get any more stupid…

    1. What? The Iranian military is clearly superior to the Saudi’s. Iran would win a war with SA.

  24. The best way to support freedom and America is to support a Saudi crown prince

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.