Iran fires cruise missiles

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
5,852
3,272
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
#1
https://abcnews.go.com/Internationa...s-attack-saudi-oil-facility/story?id=65632653

Iran fired cruise missiles in attack on Saudi oil facility: Senior US official

PlayPHOTO: Smoke is seen following a fire at Aramco facility in the eastern city of Abqaiq, Saudi Arabia, Sept. 14, 2019.Hamad I Mohammed/Reuters
WATCH Iran fired cruise missiles at Saudi oil facility
Iran launched nearly a dozen cruise missiles and over 20 drones from its territory in the attack on a key Saudi oil facility Saturday, a senior Trump administration official told ABC News Sunday.

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

President Donald Trump warned the U.S. was "locked and loaded" to respond to the attack on Sunday, waiting for verification of who was responsible and for word from Saudi Arabia on how to proceed.

(MORE: Pompeo blames Iran for major attack on Saudi oil facility amid high regional tensions)
The Trump administration, in particular Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, has blamed Iran for the attack since Saturday, but so far, there's been no public accusation that Iran launched missiles.

Interested in Iran?
Add Iran as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Iran news, video, and analysis from ABC News.
The Houthi rebels in neighboring Yemen claimed responsibility for the assault, which hit one of the world's largest oil processing facilities, hundreds of miles from the Yemen-Saudi border, and sharply impacted global oil supplies.

But a senior U.S. official told ABC News Saturday that was false: "It was Iran. The Houthis are claiming credit for something they did not do."

Pompeo tweeted that there was "no evidence the attacks came from Yemen."

Hamad I Mohammed/Reuters PHOTO: Smoke is seen following a fire at Aramco facility in the eastern city of Abqaiq, Saudi Arabia, Sept. 14, 2019.
Smoke is seen following a fire at Aramco facility in the eastern city of Abqaiq, Saudi Arabia, Sept. 14, 2019.more +
The attack on the Saudi state-owned oil company Aramco also included more than 20 drones, the official said.

Iran has denied responsibility for the attack, accusing Pompeo of "max deceit," as the country's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif tweeted Saturday.

In a Sunday evening tweet, Trump did not share the definitive accusation against Iran, instead saying the U.S. had "reason to believe that we know the culprit ... but are waiting to hear from the Kingdom [of Saudi Arabia] as to who they believe was the cause of this attack."


Donald J. Trump

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

80.2K
5:50 PM - Sep 15, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

52.8K people are talking about this


The senior official told ABC News the president is fully aware that Iran is responsible, but he wants the Saudis to acknowledge it if they want U.S. help.

Trump promised the U.S. was "locked and loaded depending on verification" and waiting for the Saudis to say "under what terms we would proceed!"

Critics condemned Trump's threat to act, especially at the Saudis' behest. Rep. Justin Amash, of Michigan, a former Republican and now Independent, tweeted, "Under our Constitution, the power to commence war lies with Congress, not the president and certainly not Saudi Arabia. We don’t take orders from foreign powers."


Justin Amash

@justinamash
Under our Constitution, the power to commence war lies with Congress, not the president and certainly not Saudi Arabia. We don’t take orders from foreign powers. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1173368423381962752

Donald J. Trump

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

57K
8:30 PM - Sep 15, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

16.2K people are talking about this


The attack and ensuing threats of retaliation had the region on edge Sunday, with heightened fears of a conflict -- Iran and its proxies against the Saudis and U.S.

Tensions have been high since Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018 and strictly reimposed sanctions, including on Iran's oil industry -- its economic lifeblood.

In an escalating series of moves, Tehran has sought to counter or undermine those sanctions -- attacking a handful of oil tankers, seizing others and their crews and assaulting Saudi oil facilities, according to U.S. officials.

(MORE: US-Iran tensions escalate after a drone attack in Saudi Arabia)
The risk of conflict seemed lower less than a week ago, with the departure of hawkish National Security Adviser John Bolton and Trump seeming to embrace the possibility of talks with Iran's President Hassan Rouhani at the United Nations General Assembly later this month in New York. Pompeo said Tuesday that Trump was "prepared to meet with no preconditions."

But in a reversal Sunday, Trump tweeted it was "incorrect" to say he was willing to meet without conditions, blaming the "fake news" despite his repeated statements saying so.

In July 2018, the president first said "no preconditions ... If they want to meet, I'll meet -- anytime they want."

ABC News' Conor Finnegan contributed to this report.
 

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
5,852
3,272
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
#3
"waiting for the Saudis to say "under what terms we would proceed!"

Absolutely ridiculous.
Did he also say they should pay us for their defense? This guy is all over the place. If I was leadership in Iran I would have no clue how to read Trump. I’m here and have no idea how to read him. If this story is true, you’d think the Saudis would’ve already reacted but I guess that’s their prerogative. .
 

UrbanCowboy1

Some cowboys gots smarts real good like me.
Aug 8, 2006
3,155
1,751
1,743
Phoenix, AZ
#5
Maybe I'm missing something, why is this ridiculous? They were the ones attacked, why wouldn't we consult with them on how to proceed.
Because it reads as if we attack Iran if the Saudi's tells us to. It's completely ass-backwards and makes it seem like they are calling the shots for the American military.

NOTE: I'm saying that's how it reads, not necessarily what was meant.
 

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
5,852
3,272
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
#6
Because it reads as if we attack Iran if the Saudi's tells us to. It's completely ass-backwards and makes it seem like they are calling the shots for the American military.

NOTE: I'm saying that's how it reads, not necessarily what was meant.
After Iraq wars 1 and 2 and defending Kuwait, it sure seems that way.
 

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
23,143
21,788
1,743
#7
We need to stay way out of this and let the Saudis handle it. Oil prices up is good for us and we don’t need to get in a another fight in the sand box over there. We have sold the Saudi’s plenty of arms to defend themselves
 

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
5,852
3,272
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
#8
We need to stay way out of this and let the Saudis handle it. Oil prices up is good for us and we don’t need to get in a another fight in the sand box over there. We have sold the Saudi’s plenty of arms to defend themselves
I concur but can’t but wonder who benefits the most? Folks under sanctions that can’t sell enough oil to keep their own economy? Russians also have a lot to gain with higher prices as does Venezuela. North Korea and China don’t always pay in cash but they get excellent trade deals with Iran. US? Sell more weapons plus make more on energy too? Israel? They get the two big kids on the block to fight each other. Saudis themselves? Claim victim hood and sue for damages plus added benefit of raising prices or great excuse to go to war. It scares me US intelligence is mentioned to have proof.
 

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
23,143
21,788
1,743
#9
I concur but can’t but wonder who benefits the most? Folks under sanctions that can’t sell enough oil to keep their own economy? Russians also have a lot to gain with higher prices as does Venezuela. North Korea and China don’t always pay in cash but they get excellent trade deals with Iran. US? Sell more weapons plus make more on energy too? Israel? They get the two big kids on the block to fight each other. Saudis themselves? Claim victim hood and sue for damages plus added benefit of raising prices or great excuse to go to war. It scares me US intelligence is mentioned to have proof.
The Euro buyers are the big losers. Russia benefits. Venezuela is a lost cause. It hurts China if the UN steps in a major way. Israel doesn’t benefit from any military action from Iran cause they are so unstable if any scale of war involving us breaks out you have to think Iran lobs a few towards Israel. We benefit in the lift of oil pricing.

We need to help the Saudis handle this. Give them intelligence etc but not fire a shot. We have a unstable leader ourselves.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,999
24,138
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#10
Because it reads as if we attack Iran if the Saudi's tells us to. It's completely ass-backwards and makes it seem like they are calling the shots for the American military.

NOTE: I'm saying that's how it reads, not necessarily what was meant.
Oh OK, yes that would be bad if it was true, I just didn't read it that way.
 

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
5,852
3,272
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
#14
Nov 6, 2010
922
339
613
#15
Good breakdown, however I hope of all hope, a blockade isn’t even being considered an option. Interesting that both articles don’t reflect on DJT as being a dolt in this moment in time. Hard to believe, with the all the tough talk, but he really seems to be concerned not only with US loss of life but potential enemy’s loss of life.
Yea, it's one of the few things I like about his presidency, that he is so anti-war. I'm afraid if Netanyahu wins this election, he'll make sure we get involved militarily.
 

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
23,143
21,788
1,743
#16
Who may end up benefiting most from this is the Saudis......
 

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
23,143
21,788
1,743
#18
Only if their response is tactical and true. If they do nothing, it’ll be a new world dynamic.
Even if they do nothing it shows Europe what a hiccup costs them......they aren't the biggest kid in the play ground anymore. It helps them to remind folks they are still a big kid
 

SLVRBK

Johnny 8ball's PR Manager
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 16, 2003
14,277
5,217
1,743
Katy, TX
#20
Because it reads as if we attack Iran if the Saudi's tells us to. It's completely ass-backwards and makes it seem like they are calling the shots for the American military.

NOTE: I'm saying that's how it reads, not necessarily what was meant.
I would read it as being concerned about security in Saudi, i.e. can the protect the other infrastructure? If we go you know more missiles will head toward those facilities.

Saudi's don't have the numbers to do it alone, their total military personnel is ~250k while Iran is ~4 mil