Saudis blame Iran for oil-facility attack
What happened
Saudi Arabia blamed Iran this week for attacks that crippled its oil industry and threatened to plunge the Persian Gulf into war. Drone and cruise missile strikes hit two key Saudi oil facilities, temporarily shutting down half the kingdom’s production, or about 5 percent of the world’s supply. Oil prices surged 19 percent in the aftermath of the attack, the biggest one-day spike since the 1991 Gulf War. Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen—who are fighting against the Saudi-backed government—initially took credit for sending the drones and missiles, and Iran denied any role. But Saudi officials said the attacks came from the north, not from Houthi-held territory to the south, and that recovered pieces of the weapons showed that they were Iranian-made. U.S. intelligence officials have also blamed Iran, with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo calling the attack “an act of war.”
After being briefed on his military options, President Trump appeared unsure over how to respond, and ordered the Treasury Department to “substantially increase” sanctions on Iran. Publicly, Trump gave mixed signals about his thinking. At first, he tweeted that the U.S. was “locked and loaded” and waiting to hear from the Saudis to learn “under what terms we would proceed.” Later, Trump said he “would like to avoid” a war, and that he believes that Iranian leaders “want to make a deal.” But Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei ruled out negotiations. “There will be no talks with the U.S. at any level,” he said.
What the editorials said
“This wasn’t just an attack on Saudi Arabia,” said the New York Post. Targeting the world’s oil supply is an attack on the global economy, and all the evidence points to Iran’s guiding hand. “U.S. military action has to be on the table.” The Iranians obviously interpreted President Trump’s stated willingness to reopen negotiations, and his decision not to use force after Iran downed a
U.S. drone earlier this year, as “signs of weakness.” Tehran “needs to learn that it can’t get away with this escalation.”
A military response would be foolish, said The Washington Post, but “the attack should not go unanswered.” Unfortunately, Trump has crippled his ability to respond effectively. The White House’s decision to unilaterally pull out of the 2015 nuclear agreement alienated our allies, who correctly feared it would provoke Iran into becoming more aggressive, not less. The fact that not even our allies can trust the
What happened to America
First? asked Daniel Larison in TheAmericanConservative.com. It’s astonishing to hear a U.S. president say that he’s waiting for the signal from Saudi Arabia about how our nation should respond to an attack that didn’t even involve American assets.
The U.S. does not have a mutual defense treaty with the kingdom. But Trump has “an excessive attachment” to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and has repeatedly put Saudi interests over ours, from aiding and abetting the kingdom’s bloody campaign in Yemen to excusing the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Now he might let the Saudis drag us into a war “over something that has nothing to do with U.S. security.”
Neutrality is not a valid option in the Saudi-Iranian conflict, said
Eli Lake in Bloomberg.com. Despite the Saudis’ brutality, “the two sides in this regional conflict are not equivalent.” Iran is bent on expanding its power in the Middle East. The U.S. and regional allies like Saudi Arabia are trying to contain it. That’s why the Trump administration wants a new Iran deal that not only restrains Tehran’s nuclear ambitions but also ends its military adventurism. Iran’s hard-line Revolutionary Guard may have launched this attack to ensure that no new talks occur, said Tom Rogan in WashingtonExaminer.com. The Guard has concluded that “Trump is fearful of a conflict,” and made a “careful calculation” that blowing up Saudi oil fields would deepen the animosity between the U.S. and Iran without bringing a military response from Trump.
One of the saving graces of Trump’s presidency was that there hadn’t been a “real foreign policy crisis,” said Daniel Drezner in The Washington Post. Well, that crisis is finally here, and Trump is “woefully unprepared.” The administration is understaffed and in disarray, with multiple acting secretaries replacing people who dared disagree with Trump. The president himself vacillates between hawkish threats and invitations to negotiate. All this increases the chances of blundering into a conflict that could devastate the Middle East and the global economy. “Other than that, I am sure everything will work out great.”