Saudi Arabian Aramco oil facilities hit by drones and missiles — allegedly from Iran — leaving U.S. President Donald Trump with no good foreign policy choices. If Saudi Arabia strikes back, it will do so with U.S. weaponry, but should it be with U.S. cooperation, support or troops?
Categories
Iran Hits Saudi Arabia: Will Trump Hit Back?
Saudi Arabian Aramco oil facilities hit by drones and missiles — allegedly from Iran — leaving U.S. President Donald Trump with no good foreign policy choices. If Saudi Arabia strikes back, it will do so with U.S. weaponry, but should it be with U.S. cooperation, support or troops?
19 replies on “Iran Hits Saudi Arabia: Will Trump Hit Back?”
The 800 pound gorilla in the green room, is that John Bolton was right.
I can’t imagine Trump attacking Iran over Saudi Arabia’s failure to defend itself. More likely Trump called King Saudi and said “Hey King, looks like you need to buy a lot more American anti-missile technology plus training on how to use it. Today. Pay me to defend yourself or pay somebody else to keep fixing your blown up oil stuff.”
Want Trump to lose the election? Have him attack Iran without a declaration of war. RINOS, Dems, Lefties, the media, Hollywood, and half the countries around the globe would blame him personally, whether he’s at fault or not. Nope, everyone has to buy in and then they can’t whine about it later. Otherwise, just ship the Saudis some more hardware and let them take care of it.
With the number of terrorists that Iran controls, I would not be at all surprised to see major terrorist attacks against civilians in this country. They cannot go toe to toe with our military, so they would fight a war of attrition until we got tired and quit. We’ve seen it before. And if you told me that Brennan and Kerry advised the Iranians on how to attack our country and make sure Trump loses the election, I wouldn’t be at all surprised. After all, the Iranians and the Democrats have a common enemy.
At the 10:50 mark Bill says it is time for these thugs to go.
It struck me as similar to the part in The Hitchhiker’s Guide stories, where the peaceful people of Krikkit become aware of the rest of the Universe for the first time.
Upon first witnessing the glory and splendor of the Universe, they casually, whimsically, decided to destroy it, remarking, “It’ll have to go.”
We could take away their ability to wage war. Would we? Do we have the will?
Saudi needs to be the one to push this.
This was a clear declaration of war of Iran on Saudi Arabia. Their move, not ours. Optics count.
A tale of two theocracies. Theocracy #1 wants to spread Sharia Law to the world. Theocracy #2 wants Armageddon TO destroy Israel. Neither are ultimately America’s true friend, but one is an ally and the other initiated this attack. The Saudis can respond effectively, though not as overwhelmingly as American could.
Having served in Gulf War 1 and lived in Saudi, I have a perspective on this. The common Saudis, the common Iranians, are just people. Its the governments that can’t get along, that cause the terror. The Saudi Royal Family is pro-American; the rest of Saudi is a theocracy run by Mullahs. In large part this goes back to the fall of the Ottoman Empire. It was the British who helped King Saud kick out the Turk invaders. The Saudis so admired the British that they formed a Kingdom, not a Caliphate (think about that).
As a reward to his helpers, King Saud gave control of the Ministry of Education to the Wahabi Sect of Islam in Saudi, a very radical group. Unlike most Muslim groups who simply say non-believers are Infidels, the Wahabis say if you don’t believe their version of Islam, then you are not just infidel, you must also die–even if you’re Muslim. This is the Sect that has funded Sunni terrorism world-wide through its fund-raising and Sharia Law nonsense.
All Shiite terrorism comes out of Iran. We had to invade Iraq in 2003 because we never finished Gulf War I; we didn’t do it to get Iraqi oil, we did it to protect Saudi. We had left Saddam with a standing army still capable of invading Saudi and we could not move our army elsewhere until that threat was eliminated (the WMD threat was BS).
Iran has not attacked the United States, so I don’t think we can declare war on them at this point unless we have a mutual aggression treaty. But I do think a limited attack is quite possible. If so, it needs to be overwhelmingly powerful and not just a tit-for-tat strike. We don’t want an escalation, we want them cowed right off the bat. A clear message must be sent if it happens. If they attack American bases or ships, then we should declare war. Formally and through Congress. The national objective should not be to occupy Iran as conquerors, but to eliminate its military ability to project power. As tired as we are of these Middle East wars, we must realize that there are players there with evil intentions for us. I think American interests must be hit by Iran before we respond with American assets, which will leave this a fight between Iran and Saudi. But if we get drawn into it, then I think we must strike suddenly, without warning, and with such absolutely overwhelming firepower, 24 hours a day, until they cry uncle. If they hit an American asset unprovoked, then have Congress declare war and set objectives: state what our purpose is in fighting and what are the outcomes need to end it. Nationalize all assets to that end and make the American people feel it. ASs a former professional warrior, I feel we have too often entered escalating battles without a formal declaration of war, and I think that is has been a policy for defeat by attrition. I also feel when we do get into undeclared wars, the American people are uninvolved. Its the military’s war, not theirs. They’d rather focus on their stock market, their latte, or the latest TV show. They’re too uninvolved. Ration their gasoline, sugar and rubber and suddenly they feel it. We have absolutely no danger of being invaded by Iran, though a nuclear threat is real. I am not sure what our national interests are in the Gulf anymore if we produce enough oil now. Stopping Iran’s nuclear accession is a clear goal. But, if we decide to act, then it must be decisive and so horribly devastating that Iran will never think of doing it again. That’s a message the third world understands. That’s how to win, IF the people have the stomach for it. I sometimes doubt Americans do. We’re too much bleeding heart ande not enough toughness. We have lived too well.
The danger with a limited military strike is that it makes common Iranians feel they are being attacked rather than the Mullah regime. I agree we have no reason to put a boot on the ground in Iran. We are not invaders. Iran’s power projection must be neutered and the Saudis can probably do that with our technical assistance. But I would not attack Iran directly with US forces until they commit an act of war against us. If they do that, then we hit them with everything we have as needed. Until then, its still a local fight between two regional powers. And whether that happens or not, there still must be a reckoning with the Wahabis within Saudi as well, and the Royal Family must be made to assure it. Otherwise we neuter the Shiite terror, but not the Sunni, and we have not forgotten 9-11.
Very good assessment… We must see this from the perspective of 2 major groups of Islam in a century’s old struggle, but with Iran testing to see how much ‘protection’ America is willing to give to the Saudi faction.
There was a Muslim converted to Christianity person (with that mindset, I don’t know which version of Islam he was) who said that if/when Iran gets a nuclear bomb, they would first attack not Israel but Saudi Arabia.
I think Trump is very adverse to starting a new war. But he’s fine w/ hitting them back and believes taking away their money is the best way to do that. I hope he’s right. That would be a much better way to topple the mullahs.
Said this over at Insty. re: this a couple days ago.
Same thing I said about Venezuela last spring when every respectable chin-scratcher was running around w/ their hair on fire that Trump was going to invade.
If our allies decide that military action is warranted, they’re perfectly capable of providing the pointy end of the spear. The US should provide diplomatic and economic cover as well as provide any logistical or intelligence support our allies lack. I would even go so far as to support 1st day air defense suppression w/ our more advanced weapons. But the Saudis/Columbians should be doing the heavy (fighting/dying) lifting.
That is where I would be on this as well Fluffy. Saudi Arabia has plenty of military and I assume the US is not their only ally in the world. They were hit, if they feel this is the time to hit back, they should be the ones pulling the coalition of countries together who are willing to take a stand against this bully. But frankly, if I was Saudi Arabia before I did anything I would make sure that the goal was decisive destruction of any military capability Iran may have (including missiles), anything short would be a mistake.
From a US perspective, we may have the most powerful military in the world and could defend ourselves very effectively if directly hit, but we are politically and culturally degraded to the point where we are seriously weakened. We are having a difficult time getting support from politicians and a chunk of society to protect our border and maintain our sovereignty and we can not get out of our own way in most of our large cities. I would be extremely cautious to committing involvement in any war beyond very well defined shorter term milestones. Support for a war, short of another direct attack like 9/11 would be nil in society in my opinion and with people like the squad jerking around the media and the politicians in DC, we would likely end up with another mess of veterans who are largely unsupported by the government who asked them to put their lives on the line.
Completely agree Buck. I used to be hawk but after the Gulf and Iraq wars, not so much. We simply lack the cultural confidence to follow through w/ any hardship or bad feelz to accomplish an aggressive foreign policy. And we have a political call and infotainment industry that’ll aggressively exploit that to gain power.
So no. short of a billion screamin’ Chinamen flooding across the AZ boarder, I’m very skeptical about foreign adventures.
Is it Saudi military or Kuwaiti military at this point.
Either way, they should be leading the charge. You and FG are correct.
If you have dealings with a bully, you make sure he is knocked down so hard he is afraid to get up. Then if he gets up, you make sure he can’t get up again. After which he is no longer a problem.
The issue is the bully has no right to inflict his lack of character on others. He who is bullied has every right to defend himself with whatever force is necessary to end the bullying. The outcome should be simple and clear. No more bully.
I don’t give a rotten fig that the bully thinks he is justified doing what he does. Neither do I give a rotten fig what kind of pathological culture, sick family, or dysfunctional background the bully came from. HE MUST BE STOPPED at a minimal cost to his victims.
The notion that “we are not that kind of people” is beyond stupid. It is suicidal. If you don’t want to live, that is YOUR problem. I don’t give a rotten fig for your feelings otherwise.
I agree completely with your sentiments, but the real question in this context is who is responsible to take out the “bully?” It has been suggested by others that the world, including the U.S., should let the “kids” in the Middle East fight it out. This seems reasonable given that Saudi Arabia is apparently capable of bringing sufficient force bear in order to accomplish the task.
The Saudis certainly have the hardware to go through Iran like a hot knife through butter. But from stories I’ve read re: their training, mostly assignments are given out based on connections and royalty. I suspect things have changed since the Gulf War in ’91 but not positive.
Your “real question” is quite valid. However, to extend the discussion about who is responsible too long is the same as deciding not to reply to the attack. Acting before the actual source/cause of the bully’s action is well identified carries the risk of replying to the wrong source/cause. At the same time, analysis paralyses is a direct and rapid path to suicide.
It is a standard quandary of any defensive action that mistakes can be made. However, the most significant mistake is to draw a red line. Then when that red line is crossed, draw another rad line that can be crossed without consequence. Draw the line, make it clear that when it is crossed we will make sure the line crosser cannot cross any line again ever!
I believe we have passed that situation a long time ago with Iran (911 et.al.). It is way past time we exert our right of self defense and end the line crossing for good. If that means to turn the entirety of Iran into radioactive green glass, so be it.
We have no higher duty to ourselves but defend our right to exist with every bit of courage, intellect, effort, and action we can muster. If we won’t, we don’t deserve to continue to exist.
‘Drawing the red line’ among other idiotic moves got two terms for O. Will Trump risk continuing the line drawing for a second term ultimately hurting the USA if he loses? It is a tough question but what questions are not tough when is comes to survival? I’m not for bullies!
Answering such a question is especially tough because when you are wrong, you die or, at best, suffer a lot.
Right. You don’t knock him down, and then follow him around telling him that you’ll knock him down again if he crosses the line.