Explosions hit two large oil tankers in Sea of Oman

[Richard S.]

Breaking news:

https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2019/...rs-Sea-of-Oman

[Hervé]

Re-posting from (here):

‘Suspicious doesn’t begin to describe what happened’: Iran’s FM on tanker ‘attacks’ in Gulf of Oman

RT
Published time: 13 Jun, 2019 10:41
Edited time: 13 Jun, 2019 11:33
Get short URL

Image reportedly showing smoke coming from one of the tankers said to have been attacked, May 13, 2019 © AFP PHOTO / HO / IRIB

Iran’s foreign minister has labeled the reported attack on two “Japan-related” oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman as “suspicious,” occurring just as Japanese Prime Minister Abe came to Tehran for major talks.

Expressing his misgivings on Twitter, Javad Zarif noted that the incidents on the two vessels on Thursday, one of which had been reportedly struck by a torpedo, had occurred as Abe sat down for “extensive and friendly” discussions with Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei.

Javad Zarif ✔ @JZarif

Reported attacks on Japan-related tankers occurred while PM @AbeShinzo was meeting with Ayatollah @khamenei_ir for extensive and friendly talks.

Suspicious doesn't begin to describe what likely transpired this morning.

Iran's proposed Regional Dialogue Forum is imperative.

765
11:54 AM - Jun 13, 2019

"Suspicious doesn’t begin to describe what likely transpired this morning"

He added that it is “imperative” that regional talks proposed by Tehran and aimed at de-escalating tensions in the Gulf go ahead.

Earlier in the day, Iran said it rescued 44 sailors from two tankers named as Front Altair and Kokuka Courageous. One of them was reportedly hit with a torpedo, but there is no official confirmation of the claim.

In May, four oil tankers were targeted off the coast of the UAE, with exact details of the incident still shrouded in secrecy. Bolton has laid the blame for the assault on Iran, yet Washington, to date, has failed to provide any evidence of complicity.


DETAILS TO FOLLOW


Related:
Iran says it rescued 44 sailors after 2 tankers were ‘reportedly attacked’ in Gulf of Oman[/QUOTE]

[Bubu]

the rogue government acts of desperation. each time they are pushing allies away till no one is left. we can already see where this is headed.

[Hervé]

PHOTOS show massive fire on ‘attacked’ oil tanker in Gulf of Oman

RT
Published time: 13 Jun, 2019 13:13
Edited time: 13 Jun, 2019 13:20
Get short URL

© Reuters / Handout / ISNA

New photos have emerged showing the inferno that erupted after an oil tanker in the Gulf of Oman allegedly came under attack.

Two oil tankers, the Marshall Islands-flagged Front Altair and the Panama-flagged Kokuka Courageous, have been evacuated following the suspected attacks in the Gulf of Oman on Thursday.

© Reuters / ISNA

Images posted by Tasnim News Agency show an extensive fire on the starboard side of the Front Altair. A large plume of smoke is seen coming from the hold of the ship, where it appears the fire originated.

© Reuters / ISNA

© Reuters / ISNA

Other photos, apparently taken from on board the oil tanker, provide a close-up of the raging inferno.

Babak Taghvaee @BabakTaghvaee

Replying to @BabakTaghvaee
#BREAKING: First images showing the fire in the Front Altair carrying Ethanol from #Qatar to #Taiwan which was torpedoed by #IRGC Navy in #Oman Sea following to the order of Supreme Leader of #Iran's Islamic Regime, #Khamenei this morning.

123
1:08 PM - Jun 13, 2019

It’s not yet known what caused the fire. The other ship, the Kokuka Courageous, was reportedly attacked by “some sort of shell” and caught fire briefly, before the blaze was extinguished.

The Iranian Navy rescued all 44 crew members from the tankers, ferrying them to the Iranian port city of Jask.

[Hervé]

Persian Gulf tanker attacks: Israel has silent underwater nuclear submarines

Sebastien Roblin The National Interest
Tue, 14 May 2019 18:20 UTC

The 2,400 ton Dolphin 2 model is based on the state-of-the-art Type 212 submarine, which features Air-Independent Propulsion technology and swim faster at twenty-five knots. While diesel submarines rely on noisy air-consuming diesel generators which require the submarine to regularly surface or snorkel, AIP-powered submarines can swim underwater very quietly at low speeds for weeks at a time.

(This article first appeared last year.)

One of Israel's Dolphin-class nuclear submarines © Reuters

Israel has never officially admitted to possessing nuclear weapons.

Unofficially, Tel Aviv wants everyone to know it has them, and doesn't hesitate to make thinly-veiled references to its willingness to use them if confronted by an existential threat. Estimates on the size of Tel Aviv's nuclear stockpile range from 80 to 300 nuclear weapons, the latter number exceeding China's arsenal.

Originally, Israel's nuclear forces relied on air-dropped nuclear bombs and Jericho ballistic missiles. For example, when Egyptian and Syrian armies attacked Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, a squadron of eight Israeli F-4 Phantom jets loaded with nuclear bombs was placed on alert by Prime Minister Golda Meir, ready to unleash nuclear bombs on Cairo and Damascus should the Arab armies break through.

Though Israel is the only nuclear-armed state in the Middle East, Tel Aviv is preoccupied by the fear that an adversary might one day attempt a first strike to destroy its nuclear missiles and strike planes on the ground before they can retaliate. Currently, the only hostile states likely to acquire such a capability are Iran or Syria.

To forestall such a strategy, Israeli has aggressively targeted missile and nuclear technology programs in Iraq, Syria and Iran with air raids, sabotage and assassination campaigns. However, it also has developed a second-strike capability - that is, a survivable weapon which promises certain nuclear retaliation no matter how effective an enemy's first strike.

Most nuclear powers operate nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines which can spend months quietly submerged deep underwater and at any moment unleash ocean-spanning ballistic missiles to rain apocalyptic destruction on an adversary's major centers. Because there's little chance of finding all of these subs before they fire, they serve as one hell of a disincentive to even think about a first strike.

But nuclear-powered submarines and SLBMs are prohibitively expensive for a country with the population of New Jersey - so Israeli found a more affordable alternative.

Berlin's Unconventional Apology
During the 1991 Gulf War, it emerged that German scientists and firms had played a role in dispersing ballistic missile and chemical weapons technology to various Arab governments-technology which aided Saddam Hussein in bombarding Israel with Scud missiles. This in fact was a long-running sore point: in the early 1960s, Israeli agents even carried out assassination attempts, kidnappings and bombings targeting German weapons scientists working on behalf of Arab governments.

Chancellor Helmut Kohl hatched a plan to simultaneously compensate Israel for the damages, while generating business for German shipbuilders suffering a downturn due to post-Cold War defense cuts. Starting in the 1970s, German shipbuilder HDW began churning Type 209 diesel electric submarines for export, with nearly 60 still operational around the globe. One Type 209, the San Luis, managed to ambush Royal Navy vessels twice during the Falkland War, though it failed to sink any ship due to the defective torpedoes.

Kohl offered to fully-subsidize the construction of two enlarged Type 209s, designated the Dolphin-class, as well as cover 50 percent of the cost of a third boat in 1994. The Dolphins displaced 1,900-tons while submerged, measured 57-meters long and are manned by a crew of 35-though they can accommodate up to ten special forces personnel. These entered service 1999-2000 as the INS Dolphin, Leviathan and Tekumah ("Revival").

Each Dolphin came equipped with six regular tubes for firing 533-millimeter DM2A4 heavyweight fiber-optic guided torpedoes and Harpoon anti-ship missiles-as well as four 650-millimeter mega-sized tubes, which are rare in modern submarines. These tubes can be used to deploy naval commandos for reconnaissance and sabotage missions, which have played a major role in Israeli submarine operations.

However, the plus-size torpedo tubes have a useful additional function: they can accommodate especially large submarine-launched cruise missiles (SLCM) - missiles large enough to carry a nuclear warhead. While a ballistic missile arcs into space traveling at many times the speed of sound, cruise missiles fly much slower and skim low over the earth's surface.

In the 1990s the United States declined to provide Israel with submarine-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles due to the rules of the Missile Technology Control Regime prohibiting transfer of cruise missile with a range exceeding 300 miles.

Instead, Tel Aviv went ahead and developed their own. In 2000, U.S. Navy radars detected test launches of Israeli SLCMs in the Indian Ocean that struck a target 930 miles away. The weapon is generally believed to be the Popeye Turbo - an adaptation of a subsonic air-launched cruise missile that can allegedly carry a 200-kiloton nuclear warhead. However, the SLCM's characteristics are veiled in secrecy and some sources suggest a different missile type entirely is used. An Israeli Dolphin submarine may have struck the Syrian port of Latakia with a conventional cruise missile in 2013 due to reports of a shipment of Russian P-800 anti-ship missiles.

Israeli Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu then purchased three more German submarines, arousing considerable controversy as many felt additional boats were unnecessary. In 2012, Der Spiegel published an expose detailing how German engineers were well-aware of the Dolphin 2's intended role as nuclear-weapon delivery system, arousing some controversy with the public, as Chancellor Merkel supposedly agreed to the sale in exchange for unrealized promises from Netanyahu to adopt a more conciliatory policy towards the Palestinians. Israel has nonetheless received two of the Dolphin 2s, the Rahav ('Neptune') and Tanin ('Crocodile') with the Dakar expected in 2018 or 2019.

The 2,400 ton Dolphin 2 model is based on the state-of-the-art Type 212 submarine, which features Air-Independent Propulsion technology and swim faster at twenty-five knots. While diesel submarines rely on noisy air-consuming diesel generators which require the submarine to regularly surface or snorkel, AIP-powered submarines can swim underwater very quietly at low speeds for weeks at a time.

This not only means they are stealthier sea-control platforms, but makes them more viable for lengthy nuclear deterrence patrols. Currently, the Chinese AIP-powered Type 32 Qing-class is the only AIP-powered submarine in service armed with ballistic missiles.

However, as fellow TNI writer Robert Farley points out, there are geographic obstacles that diminish the practicality of Israel's sea-based nuclear deterrence. For now, there is only one intended target: Iran, a country which lies hundreds of miles away from Israel. While Tehran lies barely within the supposed 930-mile range of an Israeli submarine deployed from their base in Haifa into the Mediterranean Sea, the missiles would have to spend over an hour overflying Syria and Iraq, posing navigational and survivability challenges.

A closer avenue for attack would lie in the Persian Gulf, but this would involve transiting the submarines through the Suez Canal (controlled by Egypt), around Africa (impractically far for the Dolphin-class), or stationing some at the naval base at Eilat, which faces the Gulf of Aqaba on the southern tip of Israel and is surrounded by Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. In short, deploying Israeli submarines to Iran's southern flank would require some degree of cooperation and logistical support from other Middle Eastern states that might not be forthcoming in a crisis scenario.

Farley is probably correct in arguing that the Israel's nuclear-tipped SLCMs are less practical than Tel Aviv's other nuclear-delivery platforms. For that matter, Israel doesn't currently face any adversaries with nuclear capabilities to deter against. However, like the idea of second-strike capability in general, the threat of sea-launched nukes may be more intended political weapon than one strictly intended for its military effectiveness.

About the author:

Sébastien Roblin holds a master's degree in conflict resolution from Georgetown University and served as a university instructor for the Peace Corps in China. He has also worked in education, editing, and refugee resettlement in France and the United States. He currently writes on security and military history for War Is Boring.

Related: One month after 4 merchant ships are "sabotaged"...

• Another false-flag: Two more oil tankers attacked in Gulf of Oman, possibly with torpedoes

[ThePythonicCow]

Gregory Mannarino predicts "Now... Expect Imminent US Military Strike On Iran." His forecasting record, especially regarding the Federal Reserve and the New York stock markets, but also related matters, is better than most of us.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=dR1F_WvSSJU

Damn, just damn.

(I also posted this at Ukraine, Crimea, Syria, Israel, Iran, Putin, and World War III -- Post #2042.)

[ThePythonicCow]

Joseph P. Farrell also considers these latest events in the middle east, the sabotage of two oil tankers. He concludes that it is a "very bad situation", and by process of elimination suspects the attacks were initiated by Israel and/or Saudi Arabia.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Vvyp3T81eGY

[PurpleLama]

Posted by Paul (here)
Joseph P. Farrell also considers these latest events in the middle east, the sabotage of two oil tankers. He concludes that it is a "very bad situation", and by process of elimination suspects the attacks were initiated by Israel and/or Saudi Arabia.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Vvyp3T81eGY

I haven't seen this week's news and views, yet, but the good doctor echoes my own suspicions.

[Ron Mauer Sr]

The mine (if it was a mine) exploded in the middle of the ship. That seems strange. I would have expected a mine hit at the bow.

[Iloveyou]

My favorite local MSM (100% MSM) newspaper which I appreciate mainly because of the user comments promotes the False Flag version. Their language is cautious but explicit. They say so do 98% of the user comments in the NYTimes. Is that true?

The fight between the various sections of the power blocks is getting worse (or better, that depends . . . )

[Did You See Them]

Sky news is running an article this morning showing "Iranians" removing a "limpet" (?) mine from the side of one of the ships.
It also shows a still off the ship with a "likely mine" pointed out.



In the footage of them removing the "mine" the markings around that area does not seem to match the markings in the still photo !

Anyone else think that ?

something just doesn't look right - can't quite put my finger on it !

Please compare the photo to what the video shows.

https://news.sky.com/story/oil-tanke...ement-11741489

[Dick]

seems like the depth marks are gone also, in the picture above, you can see tem in the video, right side from the "mine"

[Jayke]

Reports that China is sharing technology with Iran, technology that is ‘beyond American capabilities’ “that can take out the entire American fleet with just one missile”. If that’s true this new false flag will fizzle out into a stalemate once again.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=rIRhNo3Df7o

Also, a lot of people on gab dissecting the Iranian tanker fire video calling it a deep fake, noticing that if an oil tanker had really been torpedoed or mine blasted, you’d expect a lot more oil to be polluting those waters as a hole is blown in the hull.

Another lame attempt by the military-industrial complex to provoke world war 3.

[Did You See Them]

Most oil tankers I believe are double hull fitted due to environmental concerns and are much sturdier than your average cruise liner etc - mine might take out outside hull but leave inner hull intact and still holding cargo.

[PurpleLama]

[Tintin]

Echoing my sentiments entirely, in lieu of viewing the above shared video commentaries, the one and only Craig Murray

——————————————

The Gulf of Credibility
14 Jun, 2019 by Craig Murray

I really cannot begin to fathom how stupid you would have to be to believe that Iran would attack a Japanese oil tanker at the very moment that the Japanese Prime Minister was sitting down to friendly, US-disapproved talks in Tehran on economic cooperation that can help Iran survive the effects of US economic sanctions.

The Japanese-owned Kokuka Courageous was holed above the water line. That rules out a torpedo attack, which is the explanation being touted by the neo-cons.

The second vessel, the Front Altair, is Norwegian owned and 50% Russian crewed (the others being Filipinos). It is owned by Frontline, a massive tanker leasing company that also has a specific record of being helpful to Iran in continuing to ship oil despite sanctions.

It was Iran that rescued the crews and helped bring the damaged vessels under control.

That Iran would target a Japanese ship and a friendly Russian crewed ship is a ludicrous allegation. They are however very much the targets that the USA allies in the region – the Saudis, their Gulf Cooperation Council colleagues, and Israel – would target for a false flag. It is worth noting that John Bolton was meeting with United Arab Emirates ministers two weeks ago – both ships had just left the UAE.

The USA and their UK stooges have both immediately leapt in to blame Iran. The media is amplifying this with almost none of the scepticism which is required. I cannot think of a single reason why anybody would believe this particular false flag. It is notable that neither Norway nor Japan has joined in with this ridiculous assertion.

——————————————

[Wind]

Appears it was a flying object, i.e. a missile.

Japanese Tanker Owner Says U.S. Is Wrong About Gulf Attack

[Jayke]

Even Nancy Pelosi admits there’s no evidence Iran was responsible, and that neither the American public or President Trump have any appetite for war (speaking in the Council of Foreign Relations yesterday).

https://www.cfr.org/event/conversati...m=social_owned

PELOSI: Well, I certainly hope not. But for people of a certain age, and students of history, Straits of Hormuz gives you chills. When I—oh my goodness. But I do think that the secretary has not offered any proof of this. He’s just said what he’s said. And it’s not unbelievable that a country might exercise its leverage. And here, the Prime Minister of Japan is in—if he’s not still there, he was there yesterday, Abe, in Iran. And so we’ll see what that is, but we have absolutely no appetite for going to war to be provocative to create situations that might evoke responses where mistakes could be made. You know, it’s one—countries exercise their leverage, they threaten, they this or that. But there could be mistakes made. And that’s a very dangerous thing.

Here, we were up almost all night with our appropriations bill, but at the same time the, during the night, the defense—the Armed Services Committee was writing the defense bill. And in the defense bill, which they ended at 7:00 this morning, they put in there nothing in the bill would be considered an authorization of use of military force against Iran, that the administration would try to use some authorities that are, frankly, nonexistent. But we have to—the American people have no appetite for a war with Iran. I don’t think the president does. The president wasn’t for the war in Iraq, as you know. And so I think—I think this is—

How long before Bolton gets the chop? Rumour is Trumps already looking for a replacement. Could this oil tanker fire be Bolton’s last chance of provoking a war for his Neocon cronies before he’s removed from his seat of influence?

=====

• https://consortiumnews.com/2019/06/1...-long-goodbye/

Iran is a country of 80 million people. It has an active and well-trained global intelligence service. It has a robust navy with highly-specialized “swift boats” that are active in the Persian Gulf. And it controls the vital Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of the world’s oil and 33 percent of its liquified natural gas flows.

Trump said just a week ago that he was willing to begin talks with the Iranians “with no preconditions.” This was a major softening of U.S. policy toward Iran and it immediately drew Bolton’s ire. Indeed, The New York Times pointed out that the policy directly “overruled a longtime goal of (Trump’s) national security advisor.”

All of this has made Trump angry. He’s constantly being one-upped by one of the Washington swamp monsters he promised to rid the city of. He finally seems to have come to realize that even establishment Republicans dislike and distrust John Bolton. And now he understands why.

Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s chief of staff, has very quietly and discreetly begun informal meetings with a list of a half-dozen possible replacements for Bolton. Let’s hope he finds one that he and Trump both like sooner, rather than later.

[Gracy]

Posted by Jayke (here)
Trump said just a week ago that he was willing to begin talks with the Iranians “with no preconditions.” This was a major softening of U.S. policy toward Iran and it immediately drew Bolton’s ire.

How, politically speaking, can Irans leader be seen talking to the same man who insultingly ripped up the nuclear deal that was being lived up to in good faith, and is now deep into the process of destroying his country with devastating sanctions, not to mention the now ever looming threat of war through these gulf of tonkin type false flags we are looking at? It would be seen as going back to the negotiating table on bent knee after doing absolutely nothing wrong.

No leader can afford to be seen like that. He can't talk now even if he wanted to.

Posted by Jayke (here)
All of this has made Trump angry. He’s constantly being one-upped by one of the Washington swamp monsters he promised to rid the city of. He finally seems to have come to realize that even establishment Republicans dislike and distrust John Bolton. And now he understands why.

Now he understands? For all this man's supposed brilliance shouldn't he have known who these neocons and Goldman Sachs type critters were before he surrounded himself with them under the guise of draining the swamp?

Posted by Jayke (here)
Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s chief of staff, has very quietly and discreetly begun informal meetings with a list of a half-dozen possible replacements for Bolton. Let’s hope he finds one that he and Trump both like sooner, rather than later.

Does it make me, a country girl from kentucky, smarter then the president by knowing that if i as president wanted to stay out of the wars i campaigned against, that maybe i should go after people to advise and serve me like Ron Paul for instance, rather then war pigs like Pompeo and Bolten?

[Jayke]

Posted by Gracy May (here)

Posted by Jayke (here)
Trump said just a week ago that he was willing to begin talks with the Iranians “with no preconditions.” This was a major softening of U.S. policy toward Iran and it immediately drew Bolton’s ire.

How, politically speaking, can Irans leader be seen talking to the same man who insultingly ripped up the nuclear deal that was being lived up to in good faith, and is now deep into the process of destroying his country with devastating sanctions, not to mention the now ever looming threat of war through these gulf of tonkin type false flags we are looking at? It would be seen as going back to the negotiating table on bent knee after doing absolutely nothing wrong.

No leader can afford to be seen like that. He can't talk now even if he wanted to.

The Iranian news outlets I’ve been following are surprisingly mature in their political outlook. They seem to understand the pragmatics of political theatre and act according to their own wits regardless of whatever propoganda campaign is being levelled against them. No doubt the Iranian leaders are just as sophisticated in their understanding of the political atmosphere.

=====

More on Bolton’s paymasters...potential candidate for instigators of the oil tanker fires?

• https://iranian.com/2019/06/05/the-t...s-iran-fiasco/

The Trump Administration’s Iran Fiasco

...But one cannot accuse National Security Adviser John Bolton of having no goal with Iran. His goal is clear: the downfall of the Islamic Republic, by war if necessary, and its replacement by his paymasters, the bizarre cultists of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq organization, or MEK.

The group, whose logo features a red star, a Quranic verse, and a rifle, began in the 1960s as so-called “Islamic-Marxists.” With a militant, anti-American reinterpretation of Shia Islam, they fought alongside Ayatollah Khomeini against the Iranian monarchy. Two years after the revolution, the Islamists in Khomeini’s coalition turned on the group and crushed it after bloody street battles and assassinations.

Following those defeats, the MEK transformed itself into a bizarre cult, with an ideology combining the practices of Jonestown and the Khmer Rouge. Today it would be only a historical curiosity with a few aging followers if it had not invested so much and so wisely in Bolton. Despite the MEK’s dubious past, including terrorism against Americans and support for the 1979–1981 occupation of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, it has an even more dubious present, with welfare fraud, forced divorces, self-criticism sessions, and a range of other cult practices. As odious as it is, its paid shill now occupies one of our country’s highest national-security positions.

The MEK pays its speakers generously. Figures range from $25,000 to 50,000 and sometimes more. Since Bolton, by his own admission, has been speaking for the group for at least ten years, he has made serious money—around $180,000 by one estimate. His most recent financial disclosure includes a $40,000 payment for a 2017 speech he delivered at an MEK rally in Paris.

The group’s success—despite its aberrant beliefs—is testimony to the power of money spread generously. The MEK has bought support from bipartisan quarters. Its paid American cheerleaders include a former House Speaker (Newt Gingrich), a former cabinet secretary (Bill Richardson), retired generals (Jim Jones, Peter Pace), a former mayor of our largest city (Rudy Giuliani), and a former governor of one of our most progressive states (Howard Dean). They have spoken both at rallies in Europe and at events in Washington.

The MEK has made no secret of its goals: to provoke a war between the U.S. and Iran. In the aftermath, it calculates it would move into the wreckage and pick up the pieces.

====