Author Topic: Tanker War 2.0  (Read 1694 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 106,020
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,616
Tanker War 2.0
« on: June 13, 2019, 23:13:39 »
The Iranians deployed sea mines in the past resulting in a short war in the Gulf of Oman.The article has an image showing a mine being removed from a tanker.

https://www.stripes.com/news/middle-east/us-says-iran-removed-unexploded-mine-from-oil-tanker-1.585942


Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 106,020
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,616
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #1 on: June 13, 2019, 23:16:01 »
The Iranians don't want to talk so I suspect that some retaliation may be necessary.

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 58,954
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,073
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #2 on: June 14, 2019, 10:06:49 »
Something just doesn't smell right.

For starters, I just don't see what Iran has to gain from this.

Second, limpet mines are supposed to go UNDER a vessel. They're placed their by divers in a stealthy operations. These mines were placed on the hull ABOVE the water line, which makes no sense, but more importantly, how did the crew of the vessel not notice something being placed on their hull? Or, maybe they did; we haven't heard any "official statements" from the crew, have we?

Third, the Iranian have to know just how much of a presence the US has in the area. They're hot headed, but not retarded. Did they really think they could remove the remaining mine (if it was them) without being noticed?

I guess what I'm insinuating is that it wasn't the Iranians, but someone who wants it to look like it was the Iranians... and that does seem like a bit of false flag conspiracy level insinuation... I'm not really saying I believe that's the case, but the narrative doesn't seem to fit a logical examination of the facts so far... at least not yet.
+300
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 218,465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,805
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #3 on: June 14, 2019, 10:28:12 »
Something just doesn't smell right.

For starters, I just don't see what Iran has to gain from this.

Second, limpet mines are supposed to go UNDER a vessel. They're placed their by divers in a stealthy operations. These mines were placed on the hull ABOVE the water line, which makes no sense, but more importantly, how did the crew of the vessel not notice something being placed on their hull? Or, maybe they did; we haven't heard any "official statements" from the crew, have we?

Third, the Iranian have to know just how much of a presence the US has in the area. They're hot headed, but not retarded. Did they really think they could remove the remaining mine (if it was them) without being noticed?

I guess what I'm insinuating is that it wasn't the Iranians, but someone who wants it to look like it was the Iranians... and that does seem like a bit of false flag conspiracy level insinuation... I'm not really saying I believe that's the case, but the narrative doesn't seem to fit a logical examination of the facts so far... at least not yet.

Thanks for that, Lumber. I had some doubts about the incidents, including the method of attacks. Being a pongo from a long way back, I decided to not demonstrate my ignorance, but my BS detector was ringing. Maybe it was meant as a demonstration of motive and opportunity, but not of method.

Online YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 24,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 729
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #4 on: June 14, 2019, 11:11:11 »
placing mines above the waterline means terror, not destruction and carries the same message.  The Iranians claim that they can shut off traffic whenever they wish and they (if it was them) just proved it.  A cheap message with not oil slicks washing up on their own coastline.

Offline QV

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 9,025
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 336
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #5 on: June 14, 2019, 12:06:13 »
Yes, the seems like a message is being sent.  Next time, the mines will be below the water line.

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 58,954
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,073
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #6 on: June 14, 2019, 14:25:07 »
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 140,710
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,410
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #7 on: June 14, 2019, 15:21:11 »
It's possible the watch was sloppily and allowed a boat to approach unchallenged, so better for insurance purposes to claim a missile attack. A close inspection will pinpoint the likely cause. A small rubber boat could get alongside a slow moving tanker without being seen fairly easily.

Online Retired AF Guy

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 43,560
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,651
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #8 on: June 14, 2019, 16:22:02 »
Something just doesn't smell right.

For starters, I just don't see what Iran has to gain from this.

On the other hand the Saudi's would love to drag the US into a shooting war with Iran.
"Leave one wolf alive, and the sheep are never safe."

Arya Stark

Offline Spencer100

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 9,490
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 353
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #9 on: June 14, 2019, 16:59:55 »
This whole thing smells.....

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 544,660
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,017
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #10 on: June 14, 2019, 17:15:31 »
On the other hand the Saudi's would love to drag the US into a shooting war with Iran.
So would John Bolton

Online Retired AF Guy

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 43,560
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,651
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #11 on: June 14, 2019, 19:57:44 »
So would John Bolton

That is true.
"Leave one wolf alive, and the sheep are never safe."

Arya Stark

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 140,710
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,410
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #12 on: June 14, 2019, 20:15:48 »
Something just doesn't smell right.

For starters, I just don't see what Iran has to gain from this.

Second, limpet mines are supposed to go UNDER a vessel. They're placed their by divers in a stealthy operations. These mines were placed on the hull ABOVE the water line, which makes no sense, but more importantly, how did the crew of the vessel not notice something being placed on their hull? Or, maybe they did; we haven't heard any "official statements" from the crew, have we?

Third, the Iranian have to know just how much of a presence the US has in the area. They're hot headed, but not retarded. Did they really think they could remove the remaining mine (if it was them) without being noticed?

I guess what I'm insinuating is that it wasn't the Iranians, but someone who wants it to look like it was the Iranians... and that does seem like a bit of false flag conspiracy level insinuation... I'm not really saying I believe that's the case, but the narrative doesn't seem to fit a logical examination of the facts so far... at least not yet.

The Iranians are not monolithic, the regime has competing factions, getting the US to attack might well serve the interests of one of those factions. As for placement, try placing a limpet on a moving ship underwater? Likely they were placed by a team in a small rubber boat at night. The watch would be at best 1 officers and two seaman, with one doing rounds or other tasks, they be watching for larger vessels, fishing boats and up. So placing them would be relatively easy. Having one not go off is bad, as the device would provide a lot of clues of origin, whereas the exploding ones are likely to leave few clues other than explosive residue. So it's not surprising they came back for it. Considering the nonchalant way they removed it, I expect they were familiar with the device.

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 415,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 21,883
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #13 on: Yesterday at 06:17:04 »
A bit on what we know, and don't know, from folks who deal with OSINT all the time - shared under the fair dealing provisions of Canada's Copyright Act  ...
Quote
Was Iran Behind the Oman Tanker Attacks? A Look at the Evidence
Internet databases confirm much about the incident, but the Trump administration hasn’t provided convincing evidence of Tehran’s culpability.

By Eliot Higgins
Mr. Higgins is the managing director of the investigative collective Bellingcat.
New York Times, 14 June 2019


There has been considerable cynicism worldwide about American claims that the attacks on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman on Thursday were conducted by Iran.

Iran has denied the accusation, and on Twitter, the term “Gulf of Tonkin” trended alongside the “Gulf of Oman.”

That historical reference is telling. It was in citing the “Gulf of Tonkin incident” — the North Vietnamese were accused of attacking American destroyers in that gulf in 1964 — that President Lyndon B. Johnson persuaded the Congress to authorize greater American military involvement in Vietnam. Historians have concluded that the attack never happened and Johnson’s ploy is now seen as the quintessential false flag operation.

With tensions rising in the region since attacks on four tankers off the United Arab Emirates in May, understanding what happened and who is to blame is crucial. Could the Gulf of Oman attack be the 21st century version of the Gulf of Tonkin incident?

Thanks to the internet and the range of publicly available information, confirming or denying such an attack has become far easier since the 1960s. A distance of several thousand miles does not mean much today.

Tools and information like satellite imagery that was once only available to intelligence agencies can now be found on everyday tools such as Google Maps. Social media allows far-flung people to share information.

Online databases containing all kinds of information are now available to people anywhere. It is with these databases that we can start with our investigation into what happened in the Gulf of Oman.

Initial reports named the attacked vessels as the Kokuka Courageous and Front Altair. But how can we be sure these names are accurate when we are thousands of miles away with no reporters nearby?

Vessel tracking websites that collect transponder data from thousands of ships from fishing boats to cruise liners across the world in real time allow you to search for vessels and find their current location. Both the Kokuka Courageous and Front Altair could be found on the tracking website MarineTraffic, which showed both vessels at a standstill in the Gulf of Oman. MarineTraffic published the paths of both vessels through the gulf on its Twitter account.

The reports of the attack were followed by images claiming to show damage to both vessels, including a major fire on the Front Altair. It was impossible to read the markings on the vessels in the images but users of the MarineTraffic website were able to help confirm that the ships matched the designs of the two vessels.

That’s because MarineTraffic users photograph vessels and share the pictures on the website. Anyone can see them and verify if the vessel you are looking at is the one it is claimed to be.

Similarly, the Sentinel Hub website publishes imagery taken by its satellites. Soon after the incident in the Gulf of Oman, an image became available showing the Front Altair on fire.

With the incident confirmed, the next question was, what happened to the vessels? The United States Central Command gave one answer, publishing a statement that detailed the activity around the two vessels observed by American naval forces in the area.

The statement included images of the Kokuka Courageous (my colleagues and I checked them against reference images of the ship to confirm the vessel’s identity) that showed a hole on one side of the ship, along with an object on the side of the hull that was described in the statement as a “likely limpet mine.”

Along with the statement and image a video was published showing what was claimed to be an Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Gashti class patrol boat removing the unexploded limpet mine from the hull of the Kokuka Courageous, the implication being it was Iran that placed the mine there and was recovering evidence of its involvement.

Given the political import and the source of the statement, it is necessary to check the claims made. What can we actually see in the American evidence from the Gulf of Oman?

Identical markings on the side of the Kokuka Courageous above the alleged limpet mine are visible in both the photographs of the vessel and in the video showing its apparent removal by the Gashti patrol boat.

Photographs and video published by Iran’s Press TV network show the same type of patrol boats as part of a ceremony marking the delivery of such vessels to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.

Yet what the videos and photographs published by the United States don’t show us is more important. While the object on the side of the Kokuka Courageous is described as a “likely limpet mine” the images presented aren’t clear enough to verify that.

Nothing presented as evidence proves that the object was placed there by the Iranians. The video shows only that the Iranians chose to remove it for an as yet unknown reason.

This is especially important in light of a statement by Yukata Katada, the president of the operator of the Kokuka Courageous, that the crew had reported that the ship was attacked by a “flying object.” Mr. Katada added, “I do not think there was a time bomb or an object attached to the side of the ship.”

While we cannot be sure whether this is a Gulf of Tonkin-style incident, we can say for certain this is not the slam-dunk evidence that some would like to claim it is. In the escalating conflict between the United States and Iran we have to work on all the information available, not just what one side presents.
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Online Retired AF Guy

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 43,560
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,651
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #14 on: Yesterday at 07:37:17 »
A bit on what we know, and don't know, from folks who deal with OSINT all the time - shared under the fair dealing provisions of Canada's Copyright Act  ...

Speaking of the Marine Traffic website, here is a PDF document I put together yesterday afternoon using data from their website. The first two slides shows the tracks of the two ships as they left the Persian/Arabian Gulf and positions when attacked. The third slide shows the positions of the two ships as of yesterday afternoon. The labels and arrows are my additions. You can't tell in the third slide, but there are actually a couple tug boats assisting the ships.

+300
"Leave one wolf alive, and the sheep are never safe."

Arya Stark

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 146,080
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,312
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #15 on: Yesterday at 11:13:25 »
I don't like the limpet mine theory all that much.

I am having difficulty with two moving tankers, from two different origin ports in the gulf, being attacked after just completing a straits of Hormuz transit, 51 mins apart, by mines attached to the side of the ship.

I have not yet seen a convincing theory of how the mines got on the ships.

The truth will come out, once the ships get to a port and they can be forensically examined.

Offline Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 218,465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,805
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #16 on: Yesterday at 11:22:22 »
Let's say there had been an attack, or two, by an unnamed enemy. What is the better tactic to defend against it? Is it a convoy system, or a blockade, or a combination of both, or what?

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 146,080
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,312
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #17 on: Yesterday at 11:37:19 »
Let's say there had been an attack, or two, by an unnamed enemy. What is the better tactic to defend against it? Is it a convoy system, or a blockade, or a combination of both, or what?

The method of defence depends entirely on the method of attack.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 140,710
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,410
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #18 on: Yesterday at 12:08:32 »
Not really enough room there for a convoy and then it's at risk of shorebased Anti-ship missiles for part of the route. If you check out AIS data for the area you can see the inbound route hugs the Iranian coast. Not hard for a "fishing boat" to deploy some rubber boats at night to target a slow moving tanker (current speeds seem to be 7-14kts) plus anchored/stationary ones. With all merchant ship blurting out AIS data, the "fishing boat" would easily be able to pick a target with nothing more than a internet link.

https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:52.5/centery:28.2/zoom:7

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 106,020
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,616
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #19 on: Yesterday at 13:17:41 »
Prior to the attack on the tankers the Iranians fired a SAM at a US MQ9 Reaper but it missed.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/iranians-fired-missile-at-us-drone-prior-to-tanker-attack-us-official-says/ar-AACTdip?ocid=spartanntp
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 13:46:19 by tomahawk6 »

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 544,660
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,017
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #20 on: Yesterday at 13:41:14 »
Prior to the attack on the tankers the Iranians fired a SAK at a US MQ9 Reaper but it missed.
That is stated as an unassailable fact, when it's actually a claim made by an 'unnamed US official.'  It took the government a day and a half to 'remember' that detail, plus the added pronouncement that another MQ9 had been shot down "in the days prior" by Iranian-backed Houthi rebels -- two claims made only once global media started expressing doubts about the American version of the tanker attack events.

So, not foreign shipping, but TWO American military aircraft attacked.... with absolutely no US outrage.  To quote a sailor:
Something just doesn't smell right.


 #Charlie Wilson's John Bolton's War

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 106,020
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,616
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #21 on: Yesterday at 13:50:21 »
When all the necessary pieces are in place you will see a US armed response.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 288,501
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,777
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #22 on: Yesterday at 14:24:54 »
When all the necessary pieces are in place you will see a US armed response.

With the USS Maddox leading the charge perhaps?
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 483,860
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,369
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #23 on: Yesterday at 14:29:03 »
That is stated as an unassailable fact, when it's actually a claim made by an 'unnamed US official.'  It took the government a day and a half to 'remember' that detail, plus the added pronouncement that another MQ9 had been shot down "in the days prior" by Iranian-backed Houthi rebels -- two claims made only once global media started expressing doubts about the American version of the tanker attack events.

So, not foreign shipping, but TWO American military aircraft attacked.... with absolutely no US outrage.  To quote a sailor:

 #Charlie Wilson's John Bolton's War


And, in Foreign Affairs, Ilan Goldenberg of the Center for a New American Security suggests What a War With Iran Would Look Like. He posits one scenario in which "the United States faces a choice: continue the tit-for-tat escalation or overwhelm the enemy and destroy as much of its military capabilities as possible, as the United States did during Operation Desert Storm against Iraq in 1991. The Pentagon recommends “going big” so as not to leave U.S. forces vulnerable to further Iranian attacks. Bolton and U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo support the plan. Trump agrees, seeing a large-scale assault as the only way to prevent humiliation.

The United States sends some 120,000 troops to its bases in the Middle East, a figure approaching the 150,000 to 180,000 troops deployed to Iraq at any given point from 2003 to 2008. American aircraft attack conventional Iranian targets and much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure in Natanz, Fordow, Arak, and Esfahan. For now, the military does not start a ground invasion or seek to topple the regime in Tehran, but ground forces are sent to the region, ready to invade if necessary.

Iran’s military is soon overwhelmed, but not before mounting a powerful, all-out counterattack. It steps up mining and swarming small-boat attacks on U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf. Missile attacks, cyberattacks, and other acts of sabotage against Gulf oil facilities send global oil prices skyrocketing for weeks or months, perhaps to $150 or more per barrel. Iran launches as many missiles as it can at U.S. military bases. Many of the missiles miss, but some do not. Iran’s proxies target U.S. troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, and Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen increase their rocket attacks against Saudi Arabia. Iran may even attempt terrorist attacks on U.S. embassies or military facilities around the globe—but will likely fail, as such attacks are difficult to execute successfully.


He concludes that "Even short of such worst-case scenarios, any war with Iran would tie down the United States in yet another Middle Eastern conflict for years to come. The war and its aftermath would likely cost hundreds of billions of dollars and hobble not just Trump but future U.S. presidents. Such a commitment would mean the end of the United States’ purported shift to great-power competition with Russia and China."
+300
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 65,735
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,753
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #24 on: Yesterday at 15:04:06 »
Or: a handful of weeks destroying most of the Iranian air force, naval forces, and critical infrastructure, followed by a ceasefire offer.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.