Instability in Gulf area seas

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
26,171
Italy, Lago Maggiore
#21
If we want to be rational for a moment, that Gulf has been knowing a high level of tension for decades. But in some way, despite wars [and may be alien attacks], oil has passed through that strait.

The point is simple: even Iran has got a clear interest to keep that strait open. And, btw, the attacked tankers [if I'm not wrong] aren't oil tankers. Curious detail.

So, don't worry, nothing is going to happen in the brief term.
 
Likes: M.S. Islam

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,449
Portugal
#22
And, btw, the attacked tankers [if I'm not wrong] aren't oil tankers. Curious detail.
I don’t understand much about oil tankers, but they seem oil tankers:


I think that the designation includes crude tankers and refined oil products tankers.

Not sure what non petroleum liquids a tanker like this one would carry. Water? Other chemicals?
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,427
San Antonio, Tx
#23
I still dont understand what a recording of people REMOVING mines is supposed to prove...... You'd want a recording of people PLACING mines in order to establish they were behind the attack
This is true. It is not “proof”of anything - merely suggestive and not entirely convincing. The last thing we should want is to go to war based on misunderstanding and half-assed “proof”.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,427
San Antonio, Tx
#25
The usual Blame Game is drowning out the point you make above. Who cares if it was the "Republican Guard" acting without the knowledge of the Iranian regular navy (or of the government for that matter)? Who cares if it was a false flag operation (Saudi, Gulf states, CIA)? Is an OPEC member trying to drive up oil prices by creating a crisis? The importance of the flow of oil for Europe, India, Japan, and China for that matter, is of far more importance.

As so often is the case, the most important issue gets sidelined by politics of bit players and sometimes by ideologues. In the 19th century, during a time of prolonged peace, international intervention by the navies of great powers was frequently used to drive home a point.

I can't find anything on line about NATO navies' preparations for collective action. The Indian navy is closer at hand, and Japan would have a vital interest as well. If, as suspected, the Revolutionary Guard (aka Islamic SS) is involved, a multinational fleet demonstrating in the Gulf region could be important. The message would be that Iran is not only facing the rantings of a handful of US jerks (not the defense establishment, just a few out of control guys), but modern, powerful naval forces of six or eight countries with vital interests in the Gulf and its oil.

China would have to be considered as well, except that India and the US do not want an excuse for any more presence of Chinese naval forces in the Indian Ocean.

As a side note, the situation in the M.E. is probably as hopeless as it has ever been, and the US can not allow erstwhile "allies" such as Saudi Arabia and Israel to drag it into a conflict where its own vital interests are less than they used to be.
The US doesn’t need oil from the Middle East, but it definitely “needs” for the ME to be a stable part of the world. Attacks on other countries’ merchant marines is a gun aimed at the world and whoever did this knows that. If these attacks continue, the world’s economy is under an existential threat.
 
Jul 2009
9,836
#26
The US doesn’t need oil from the Middle East, but it definitely “needs” for the ME to be a stable part of the world. Attacks on other countries’ merchant marines is a gun aimed at the world and whoever did this knows that. If these attacks continue, the world’s economy is under an existential threat.
The US does have less need of M.E. oil, but our trading partners and allies (remember those?) definitely do need that oil. Any major disruption is not in US interests. As so often, it is we who carry the largest load militarily.
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
26,171
Italy, Lago Maggiore
#28
I read that the last attack was on a tanker carrying methanol (?).
Yes, methanol.

Today I've read an interesting opinion: the oil price on the global market is a bit too low ... to increase tense in the gulf [without damaging oil industry ...] would mean to increase oil price. Oil is a basic of global economy, if its price is too low not a few countries [not only Venezuela!] will have troubles ...

To attack a tanker carrying methanol in the Persian Gulf is a very smart way to make oil price arise ...

It's not a so incredible explanation of what has happened.
 
Jul 2009
9,836
#29
Yes, methanol.

Today I've read an interesting opinion: the oil price on the global market is a bit too low ... to increase tense in the gulf [without damaging oil industry ...] would mean to increase oil price. Oil is a basic of global economy, if its price is too low not a few countries [not only Venezuela!] will have troubles ...

To attack a tanker carrying methanol in the Persian Gulf is a very smart way to make oil price arise ...

It's not a so incredible explanation of what has happened.
Someone must be pretty desperate. To try that approach (which does make some sense) at the risk of a military confrontation that could get out of hand indicates desperation IMO.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,314
#30
The US doesn’t need oil from the Middle East, but it definitely “needs” for the ME to be a stable part of the world. .
This assertion has been questionned by many... US actions in the middle east for the past 50+years do not seem to indicate that the US wants or needs a stable ME... On the contrary, instability allows massive weapons sales for one thing, US bases for another and a rush of countries seeking US protection (thus "allies" even if not all that reliable) for a third...
 

Similar History Discussions