Major drone attack cripples Saudi oil production

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,990
37,161
136
I certainly hope not. But Trump can turn on a dime, and isn't rational.

He's deeply worried about the economy to the point of making up conversations with China to goose the markets and has in the past demonstrated extreme sensitivity to oil prices. I think retaliation is possible but not super likely.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
Yet here it is, already. Trump tweets -

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!
 

amenx

Diamond Member
Dec 17, 2004
4,094
2,363
136
That's ridiculous. I don't think Iran has any intention of negotiating until we live up to the JCPOA, no matter what our bloviator in chief has to say. Bolton being gone doesn't really change anything. He & Pompeo were thick as thieves & Bolton's hand picked guy, Kupperman, is the acting NSA. Their hand picked guy is still in charge of CENTCOM.

Is there some part of Lying that you don't understand? It's exactly what we've been getting from the Trump admin every inch of the way with their contrived hokum of Threats! & Tensions! I rather suspect that's what's at stake with the suppressed IC whistleblower information denied Congress.
Huh? Irans no.1 priority is the avoidance of its economic collapse brought on by the sanctions. The JCPOA is a part of that and is what brought on the sanctions (duh). They dont care about the JCPOA per se unless it results in lifting the sanctions. Boltons dismissal is a non-issue other than it brought up the possibility that Trump may be open to negotiations with the Iranians. And here an Iranian attack (with plausible deniability) can have the Saudis and U.S. by the balls. You have to go deeper than that to understand geopolitical realities and not just assume things on face value.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
70,165
28,812
136
Yet here it is, already. Trump tweets -
The market has already shrugged that off. If the Sauds aren't willing to put their royal fannies on the line, I see no reason Trump should put Americans in harm's way over this.
 

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
857
126
Terrorists sponsored by the House of Saud murdering 3,000 Americans is now considered, "our imperfect relationship".
What did I just say about going full r*tard? I call it out for the farce it is and your response is to double-down. Figures.

Al Qaeda was funded by the House of Saud and the House of Saud continues to fund the global madrasa system that cranks out Wahhabi nutjobs that fill Al Qaeda's (and ISIS) ranks. Saudi Arabia is despotic monarchy with a well advanced surveillance state yet we are to believe that Saud subjects and funds can continue to flow into Al Qaeda without the blessing of the House of Saud?
The CIA considered Usama bin Laden "The Financier" in the early days of Al Qaeda. They didn't realize this ethnically-Yemeni former-Saudi was in control as the head.

He was essentially expelled and disowned by the Saudis while the rest of his rich ethnically-Yemeni family was free to stay. Your narrative about the Saudis wanting Yemeni genocide and embracing Al Qaeda doesn't hold water. Yes, individual Saudi's did join/support Al Qaeda... just like Usama bin Laden (a former Saudi!) and the Saudi hijackers did. Demonstrably doesn't mean what you purport it means.

Duh.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Eh...I doubt Trump wants a war if his priority is keeping oil prices down which seems to be the case.

The oil futures market opened 19% higher on the news. Putting the stink eye on Iran just exacerbates the reality of a production cut.

I have a terrible feeling Trump has no idea what he's playing with here but I think his Neocon staff sure as hell does. Their war mongering arrogance threatens us all.
 

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,944
2,173
126
He was essentially expelled and disowned by the Saudis while the rest of his rich ethnically-Yemeni family was free to stay. Your narrative about the Saudis wanting Yemeni genocide and embracing Al Qaeda doesn't hold water. Yes, individual Saudi's did join/support Al Qaeda... just like Usama bin Laden (a former Saudi!) and the Saudi hijackers did. Demonstrably doesn't mean what you purport it means.

Duh.
Not saying you're wrong but how does SA welcoming a rich Yemeni family equate to them loving and wishing peace on all Yemeni's?

Also, about AQ just because they publicly denounced Bin Laden (how else could they act towards the world's most wanted man?), doesn't mean they weren't supporting them in other ways.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
I have a terrible feeling Trump has no idea what he's playing with here but I think his Neocon staff sure as hell does. Their war mongering arrogance threatens us all.
You can`t be serious!!! Trump having no clue?? You mean the only man in the world to be the smartest person on earth, concerning every topic?? You mean out Blunderer in Chief!! Say it ain`t so!! After there are good people on both sides......rofl
 

amenx

Diamond Member
Dec 17, 2004
4,094
2,363
136
Al Qaeda was funded by the House of Saud and the House of Saud continues to fund the global madrasa system that cranks out Wahhabi nutjobs that fill Al Qaeda's (and ISIS) ranks. Saudi Arabia is despotic monarchy with a well advanced surveillance state yet we are to believe that Saud subjects and funds can continue to flow into Al Qaeda without the blessing of the House of Saud?
Man, you are just blabbing nonsensical things and seem completely out of touch with the origins and aims of Qaeda. The Saudis and the Reagan admin supported the original Afghan/Arab fighters that were the precursors of Qaeda and the Taliban. They did this because it was during the cold war and after the Soviet Unions invasion of Afghanistan. The 'Red Threat' was the no.1 strategic and security issue for the U.S., and Islamic terrorism was not yet in its infancy. After the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, Iraq invaded Kuwait (non-related). The Saudis (and the U.S), fearful of an Iraqi attack on the Saudis, set the stage for the deployment of thousands of U.S. troops to Saudi.

Bin Laden, then still not the terrorist he had become, pleaded with the Saudis not to let U.S. troops on sacred Saudi soil (home of Mecca and Medina) and that he and his militant group would help the Saudis fight off any Iraqi attack. Obviously, he was ignored and that rattled his cage. The House of Saud AND the U.S. became his enemies then. He and his followers (then becoming Qaeda) then conducted several terrorist attacks against the Saudis as well as the U.S. The House of Saud and Qaeda are mortal enemies each going for each others throats.

The 'Wahabization' the Saudis undertook, and which ultimately brought about the likes of Bin Laden, came about after the Iranian revolution (79-80). The Iranians are Shia Muslims vs the Saudi Sunnis, and they have viewed each other with great suspicion and hostility. The Saudis tried to spread their brand of Islam (Wahabism, and which is virulently anti-Shia) to counter the spread of Irans influence in the region. Basically in a nut shell. You can spout off all sorts of catch phrases (global madrasas, etc) to indicate you may have a clue, but I dont think you do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Luna1968

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,990
37,161
136
The oil futures market opened 19% higher on the news. Putting the stink eye on Iran just exacerbates the reality of a production cut.

I have a terrible feeling Trump has no idea what he's playing with here but I think his Neocon staff sure as hell does. Their war mongering arrogance threatens us all.

Some of those people got pushed out after Bolton was canned. There is probably much less of that influence at work now. I'm sure Cotton and Graham are pounding on the table demanding strikes but so far Trump's heart doesn't seem to be in it. He's too busy shitting bricks that oil could go to $100 while he's trying to slant mixed economic news with a torrent of bullshit.
 

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
857
126
Not saying you're wrong but how does SA welcoming a rich Yemeni family equate to them loving and wishing peace on all Yemeni's?
They made their fortune in Saudi Arabia as ethnically-Yemeni Saudis. They didn't move their existing fortune/construction company into SA as Yemenis. They built it there... over generations as ethnically-Yemeni Saudis who came there over a century ago.

Also, about AQ [SA] just because they publicly denounced Bin Laden (how else could they act towards the world's most wanted man?), doesn't mean they weren't supporting them in other ways.
Individuals, not the state. I made that point when I pointed out that bin Laden was a Saudi "Financier" himself and yet Saudi Arabia effectively disowned him long before he became notorious through the embassy and USS Cole bombings and such. Like, mid/early '90s after the WTC bombing when the CIA only thought of him as "The Financier."
 
Last edited:

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,944
2,173
126
They made their fortune in Saudi Arabia as ethnically-Yemeni Saudis. They didn't move existing their fortune/construction company into SA as Yemenis. They built it there... over generations as ethnically-Yemeni Saudis who came there over a century ago.
Okay and what does them welcoming one family have to do with liking ALL Yemenis?
 
Last edited:

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
857
126
Okay and what does them welcoming one family have to do with liking ALL Yemenis?
I never said it was about that. I said it was indicative of Saudi and ethnic-Yemeni relations so describing the Saudi's actions as "genocide" would be demonstrably incorrect.

Isn't it interesting that Saudi's and Yemeni's got along in Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan (Al Qaeda)? ;) Race is not part of this. He was shamelessly scraping the bottom of the barrel by trying to cast whatever they are doing in Yemen as "genocide."

Also, it's not the only example. It's just the first example. Low hanging fruit to demonstrate the contradiction since we all know these players.

I'm not convinced that their attitude towards him alone means they didn't support AQ in some way.
Me either but, again, that would be individuals who are Saudi, not the state itself.

For all we know he might have had a falling out with the royal family, becoming an outcast,
He did. It's no secret. Happened after the WTC bombing.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Huh? Irans no.1 priority is the avoidance of its economic collapse brought on by the sanctions. The JCPOA is a part of that and is what brought on the sanctions (duh). They dont care about the JCPOA per se unless it results in lifting the sanctions. Boltons dismissal is a non-issue other than it brought up the possibility that Trump may be open to negotiations with the Iranians. And here an Iranian attack (with plausible deniability) can have the Saudis and U.S. by the balls. You have to go deeper than that to understand geopolitical realities and not just assume things on face value.

That's word salad of the confused variety. Risking war by attacking KSA isn't in Iran's interests. Period. They're rational actors. They were under American sanctions since 1979 which were lifted as part of the JCPOA. They have no intention of meeting with Trump until the US upholds our end of that deal-

 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Luna1968

Golden Member
Mar 9, 2019
1,202
680
136
That's word salad of the confused variety. Risking war by attacking KSA isn't in Iran's interests. Period. They're rational actors. They were under American sanctions since 1979 which were lifted as part of the JCPOA. They have no intention of meeting with Trump until the US upholds our end of that deal-


you seem to be very defensive about anything negative about Iran. why is that?
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,261
5,709
146
The market has already shrugged that off. If the Sauds aren't willing to put their royal fannies on the line, I see no reason Trump should put Americans in harm's way over this.

I think you just explained why the Saudis would be willing to not stick their shit out. They've got a mentally retarded Pit Bull that they can sick on whomever they want and they are looking to keep leveraging that in order to keep the breeder of the Pit Bulls to keep buddy-buddy (much like Israel, they can see the growing discontent with the US being buddied up to a regime that treats its people as bad as the "Axis of Evil" groups that we demonize in order to justify so many stupid actions).

Turmp is desperate to prop up his strong man facade, and especially has a hard-on for Iran. Saudi Arabia gets the US to do all the heavy lifting, and should evidence disputing Iran's role in it come out, they'd be the one to take the blame.

Man, you are just blabbing nonsensical things and seem completely out of touch with the origins and aims of Qaeda. The Saudis and the Reagan admin supported the original Afghan/Arab fighters that were the precursors of Qaeda and the Taliban. They did this because it was during the cold war and after the Soviet Unions invasion of Afghanistan. The 'Red Threat' was the no.1 strategic and security issue for the U.S., and Islamic terrorism was not yet in its infancy. After the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, Iraq invaded Kuwait (non-related). The Saudis (and the U.S), fearful of an Iraqi attack on the Saudis, set the stage for the deployment of thousands of U.S. troops to Saudi.

Bin Laden, then still not the terrorist he had become, pleaded with the Saudis not to let U.S. troops on sacred Saudi soil (home of Mecca and Medina) and that he and his militant group would help the Saudis fight off any Iraqi attack. Obviously, he was ignored and that rattled his cage. The House of Saud AND the U.S. became his enemies then. He and his followers (then becoming Qaeda) then conducted several terrorist attacks against the Saudis as well as the U.S. The House of Saud and Qaeda are mortal enemies each going for each others throats.

The 'Wahabization' the Saudis undertook, and which ultimately brought about the likes of Bin Laden, came about after the Iranian revolution (79-80). The Iranians are Shia Muslims vs the Saudi Sunnis, and they have viewed each other with great suspicion and hostility. The Saudis tried to spread their brand of Islam (Wahabism, and which is virulently anti-Shia) to counter the spread of Irans influence in the region. Basically in a nut shell. You can spout off all sorts of catch phrases (global madrasas, etc) to indicate you may have a clue, but I dont think you do.

Sorry, but talk about babbling nonsense and spewing catch phrases. Islamic terrorism was in its infancy before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and even before the Iran hostage crisis. Operation Entebbe ring any bells? What about the 72 Munich Olympics massacre? Hell, I think movies had jokes about some of that shit in the mid-70s too. Much of it was "freedom fighter" airplane hijackings (which included South American revolutionist groups) but the Arab versions of those (which were the "infancy" of Islamic terrorism).

Do you even fucking listen to yourself? You said Bin Laden/AQ and the Saudis were mortal enemies (so therefore Saudi Arabia totally didn't fund them; literally the crux of your entire argument against what he posted and you trying to chastise him for supposedly not knowing anything) but then admit later they buddied up. WTF? No idea why you're acting all pissed off when you just corroborated what the person said.

I don't know what orifice or sand you have your head jammed but American investigations have proven that the funding for Al Quaeda (specifically the training and planning of the 9/11 attacks) came from Saudi Arabia, including via members of the Royal Family. Which even though it stopped short of saying they were fully supported by the ruling members of the family, its not like they were completely unaware either, as it had been going on for over a decade at that point, and like you said, they were specifically pushing Wahabism, of which such behavior was part of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

amenx

Diamond Member
Dec 17, 2004
4,094
2,363
136
Sorry, but talk about babbling nonsense and spewing catch phrases. Islamic terrorism was in its infancy before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and even before the Iran hostage crisis. Operation Entebbe ring any bells? What about the 72 Munich Olympics massacre?
Didnt read the rest of your post because I stopped right there. Palestinian militancy or terrorism had nothing to do with the Islamist movement. In fact in the 70s, they were secular nationalist and even Marxist oriented (basically anti-religion). The head of the PFLP (a group that carried out some of the attacks, plane hijackings), was George Habbash, a Christian Palestinian. 'Islamism' in political and militant movements, terrorism (motivated by Islamist ideology) did not occur until the 80s. As you seem completely unaware of simple basics as this, no point in reading the rest of your post, because it is likely similarly out of touch with the events and history of the region.
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,261
5,709
146
Huh? Irans no.1 priority is the avoidance of its economic collapse brought on by the sanctions. The JCPOA is a part of that and is what brought on the sanctions (duh). They dont care about the JCPOA per se unless it results in lifting the sanctions. Boltons dismissal is a non-issue other than it brought up the possibility that Trump may be open to negotiations with the Iranians. And here an Iranian attack (with plausible deniability) can have the Saudis and U.S. by the balls. You have to go deeper than that to understand geopolitical realities and not just assume things on face value.

You have a very weird way of arguing. You act like he was completely wrong then basically agree with him. No idea where you're getting that wasn't exactly what he was talking about. I mean, holy shit, duh, that is the sanction program so obviously its about Iran wanting to get the sanctions to stop. That was his point though. They have no interest in negotiating/talking unless the US actually shows they'll adhere to reducing sanctions as otherwise there's no point to anything as Iran will just get stuck with sanctions no matter what agreements they have or what they do.

I don't agree that the Bolton situation is a non-issue (for one, it likely wasn't a dismissal in the typical sense, although you can't trust him or Turmp so we'll have to wait for more credible information to ascertain what exactly happened there). Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if this attack was possibly somewhat orchestrated by Bolton as a means of triggering hostilities, due to him finding out about Turmp wanting to try to renegotiate with Iran, and so looking to play him and get him back to hating Iran.

Its no secret that SA has been wanting to boost the price of oil for some time. This causes that. And it gives them reason to likely funnel in a bunch of weapons under the guise of it being equipment to fix their oil production systems. This lets the US absolve itself of funneling the weapons, while still sending them weapons to keep perpetrating their war with Yemen.

No clue how you think Iran has the US an SA by the balls here. It gives the latter extra incentive to not do what you just got done saying is Iran's number 1 priority (reducing sanctions). It also provides potential argument for doing more (attacking Iran). And that will likely lead to larger conflicts if not outright war, which is not good for Iran. Its not good for the US (and almost certainly not for SA) either, but its very probably least of all going to be beneficial to Iran.

Does that mean Iran isn't doing shit? Absolutely not. They're well known for their little attempts at instigation, trying to get reactions so they can prop up their own persecution bullshit. They're not the only ones though. There's a lot of groups that seem to want another war in the Middle East for various reasons.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
you seem to be very defensive about anything negative about Iran. why is that?

I'm just a believer in the truth & that's obviously not what we're getting from the Trump admin. Their photo fakery is obvious, just as it was with the Kokuka Courageous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
16,094
8,109
136
Wake me up in a couple of weeks when a proper investigation has been done. Seems like no one really knows what happened yet, so the vociferous finger pointing begins.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
A question for all that don't think Iran had anything to do with this attack.

Who did it and who masterminded it and why?

Easy. That's the Houthis, striking back against a Saudi invasion that's gone on for 4 years.