One Thousand US Troops Sent to Middle East in Response to Iran’s Attack on Oil Tankers

One thousand U.S. troops are being sent to the Middle East in response to last week’s attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman.

The US accused Tehran of being responsible for an explosion that set two oil tankers on fire off the coast of Iran.

The Pentagon released video last week that officials said show Iran’s Revolutionary Guard removing an unexploded limpet mine from one of the oil tankers targeted near the Strait of Hormuz.

The Japanese-owned Kokuka Courageous with 23 crew members aboard and Norway’s Front Altair with 23 people were abandoned after the blasts.

SOURCES- BBC News, USA Today, Fox News and Fox Business Video
Written By Brian Wang, Nextbigfuture

87 thoughts on “One Thousand US Troops Sent to Middle East in Response to Iran’s Attack on Oil Tankers”

  1. So you agree he made no such claim. That I was right and you were wrong. Well done. Admitting you have failed is an important first step to personal growth.

    Reply
  2. He made no such claim. No part of his proposal involved attacking Iran. It was all about responses to various Iranian actions.

    Reply
  3. I was wrong. We’re at 12 million+ barrels a day. Most ME oil’s going to Asia now.

    What are they waiting for? Logistically, it’s an immense challenge to try to invade – and there’s no REASON to aside from getting rid of an annoyance.

    Yes, Iran’s declared war on us. that’s like a little yappy dog barking from behind a fence at a much larger dog. The little dog knows that as long as the fence is in place, they can bark all they want.

    When the fence is gone – the little dog will not dare bark.

    So… why wait? For one of two things to happen, IMO.

    The people can get sick of the Mullahs and kill them. All they’ve brought is death and slow disaster for Iran, but as the saying goes, “there’s a lot of ruin in a country.” In the end, the people need to replace them. If that replacement means their heads are on pikes while the rest of them is in a trench somewhere, I won’t mourn.

    Or – the country can fail economically. (See Venezuela – with the slow grinding poverty getting worse by the day.) The trouble is that desperate countries do desperate things. How desperate is Iran? I think they’re getting to a point where soon they’ll be going “You must give us $100 million to allow a tanker through or we will destroy it.”

    If they do that – and follow through – the little dog will not be so funny and it is very likely to get stomped into paste.

    But anything short of that? It’s not worth the trouble to go to war.

    Reply
  4. Russia isn’t really worried about an oil war. If oil skyrocekts then they make a lot of money.

    China? Totally worried.

    Rising oil prices would be a net drag on the US economy.

    Reply
  5. “Hitting a NATO allied cruiser with defensive capabilities with a supersonic seaskimmer would have been impressive.”

    LOL no. Odds on military retaliation: 100.0%. Want to see your European allies scatter? Sink some “NATO allied cruiser”.

    “That would literally only work against a limpdick country’s unarmed commercial tanker vessel.”

    Nobody worries about closing sea traffic in the gulf for cruisers, people worry about the limpdick commercial tankers being sunk.

    Reply
  6. “Actually it does demonstrate a very important thing. The willingness to do this.”

    Ding ding. Iran is communicating their willingness to do stuff like this.

    Reply
  7. If this was some kind of a false flag operation then it would leak. State Dept employees would love to humiliate Trump and would have leaked in 5 minutes.

    Reply
  8. No need for a ground invasion. US goal is to make sure Iran doesn’t develop nukes. Can’t develop nukes if you don’t have electricity.

    Reply
  9. Actually most US “wars” don’t involve ground troops and all that. Iraq was an oddity in that regard. The template for a war looks like this:

    1. Bomb Iranian stuff
    2. Repeat

    Very difficult to enrich Uranium when you don’t have power plants, a power grid, or access to your underground bunkers.

    Reply
  10. Drive up the price of oil, for one. Threatening the Strait of Hormuz – even in a “Oh, WE didn’t do that, I don’t know who did, lol” manner used to be a guaranteed way to get a $10-20 spike in per-barrel price. This time – maybe $2-3, and they’re having a real hard time with the deniability aspect. That’s not going to bring much in.

    I think they’re still running on a 2000’s model, where the US wasn’t producing 9+ million barrels a day. Might have worked then – but now? Not so much.

    Next – their internal structure’s apparently (at least by accounts) shakey as all hell. It’s a time-honored strategy that when your government’s shakey you can declare a war on another country and get a temporary surge of support. But who can they go to war with? You’ve got Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan (poor as shit, and nothing worth trying to take over) and Pakistan. None of them really LIKE Iran. Oh, there’s Iraq (been there, done that, didn’t go well) and Saudi across the Gulf – but none of them have a lot of resources that’d be an easy grab… while the US is remote enough to make a good ‘threat’ to keep the people riled up, but not likely to take Iran as a REAL threat ala the USSR – just a really bad geopolitical annoyance. So it’s a game of pushing far enough to get a response, but not far enough to get a really ‘energetic’ response. (And especially not one that earns a nuclear warhead.)

    Then… why target a Japanese tanker? I’ll let you think about it.

    Reply
  11. “Iran’s Attack” – come on Brian, you’re better than this. Literally every nation on Earth except the US is saying that it wasn’t Iran. The footage quite clearly shows them REMOVING a mine, not firing a torpedo as the US claimed.

    Reply
  12. Killed a million people in the process. Displaced millions more. Car bombs galore in Iraq daily. Moved on to Libya. Open air slave markets for all. A fitting end indeed … or perhaps you’ve only just got started in making life miserable for all?

    Reply
  13. There are certainly better and worse ways to go. Do you see everything in black and white extremes? War started already, blowing up those ships was like step 40.

    Reply
  14. Considering that US net oil imports are at their lowest point since 1957 and the US currently is the largest oil producer and Canada is 5th with enough between us to supply us and them. Personally, I don’t think the US is as worried about an oil war as lets say, Russia and China. Also, despite the best efforts of the GOP and Trump, the US is still going toward wind and solar more and other forms of non-oil based energy. If we give the green-lgiht to MSR stuff then oil is not an issue. Additionally, the US still has massive stores of natural gas as well.

    China needs a lot of imports for everything energy related. A oil based conflict hurts them more than anyone., 70% or more of their oil and natural gas is imported. US is at 11% and 1/10 of China overall. If the Middle East is shut off, China would be worried, not the US.

    While I generally disagree with Trump, the trade war with China could work in our favor as they mainly supply trinkets and they still rely on us and the outside world for higher tech stuff like microchips and jet engines (the US can force Europe to shut the engine supply off if needed).

    With the US as the biggest oil producer in the world at this point and Canada primed to go up if oil prices increase (they have massive amount of expensive to extract oil), can you say profit? Think that all this is a coincidence?

    Reply
  15. Frankly, Donald would be boasting about it on Twitter the next day because he couldn’t help himself. It’s not that our special forces couldn’t pull off a major frame job if ordered to do so…

    Reply
  16. A lot small percentage of our nation’s income comes from oil than other players in the area. Note, if Iraq is any indication, a major war in the Middle East costs trillions of dollars in the long run which we could never pay off with a little extra oil revenue.

    Reply
  17. You don’t want any brinkmanship that relies on the other guy being highly competent and in complete control of every single person in their military.

    You need a nice margin so that if some idiot starts acting idiotic there is time and space for their own side to shut them down (hard) before you’ve tripped into hot war.

    (Probably want a margin on your side too. The USA doesn’t have a perfect record of nobody on their side doing an Abu Ghraib or a Bradley Manning.)

    Reply
  18. That’s why it’s called a revolution. It’s a wheel turning. Those on top end up on the bottom and those on bottom end up… well they usually end up cannon fodder or something, but someone who was halfway up now ends up on top.

    Reply
  19. Actually it does demonstrate a very important thing. The willingness to do this.
    The actual cold eyed grit required to start blowing up tanks is in many ways the MOST important thing to demonstrate.

    Everyone can launch a missile or send out some divers with a mine. New Zealand can launch a missile. Monaco has divers. PepsiCo had naval warships. Nobody is scared of them though, because nobody thinks they’ll start actually sinking anything. It’s the will to actually destroy things and kill people that is the limiting factor.

    Though… that doesn’t work if we don’t know who did it.

    In reality, what “we” the general public know and what “we” the nations of the world know are not the same thing.

    Reply
  20. No, actually it isn’t “just called war by another name” (paraphrased). 

    It is a tough-cop, firearms drawn, but no-shooting-first position. Overflights to gain surveillance info. Demonstrating our resolve to “spend the resources” keeping their offensive build-up in check. NOT doing what a vengeful opponent can do in war, … targeting infrastructure, roads, ruining airfields, airports, water pumping stations, electrical generating plants. Not doing those things.  

    Indeed … thinking on it somewhat more, I feel that a 24:7:365 program on fly-overs is too great a taunting. It is guaranteed to get their trigger-fingered SAM battalions pressing buttons, offensively “lighting up” the overflights. Inviting too much preëmption from us, giving them too many opportunities to salvo off volleys. Rather, the “secret squirrel” surveillance and ordinance jets would do the work. The wings that can NOT be seen by ground-based RADAR. Plenty of intelligence to gather. Also, with the newest radar-dark smart munitions, things could be covertly targeted if need be; the surprise would be fairly profound.  

    Still … not war. 
    Just a 21st century squabble. 
    As it should be, for the time being. 

    Just saying,
    GoatGuy ✓

    Reply
  21. HummBee … you sound like a broken pölïtical propaganda record. {blah}… {blah}… {blah}… Wet dreams {blah}… {blah}… Iran too militarily strong {blah}… {blah}… American is a country of chickenhawks {blah}… {blah}… {blah}… Go China, Go Iran, Go Iraq, Go Russia, Go {blah}… {blah}… {blah}…  

    I nailed it at your first comment.
    Still in form I see.

    LOL
    Just saying,
    GoatGuy ✓

    Reply
  22. That’s just called a war. You gloss it up like it’s an especially well planned or thought out kind of war, like it’s special in that regard. By Step 1, it’s going to go to hell, and the rest of it will be made up as you go. Like every other war.

    Reply
  23. No it wouldn’t. Just like how msm did not challenge Trump when he ordered the strike in Syria based on fabricated intelligence. You’re not seeing any coverage on nyt about the leaked opcw report that says the Douma chemical attacks were staged, are you?

    Reply
  24. Makes a lot more sense as a Bolton/Feith thing in quiet corners of Langley.

    If it’s a false flag, nobody in our intelligence/special activities world is dumb enough to actually tell this president about it. He’d blurt it out himself in the middle of an interview.

    Reply
  25. There would be nothing impressive about this demonstration, one because mining in peace time is not hard and 2 because mining becomes impossible against the presence of the US Navy. This idea holds no water. Hitting a NATO allied cruiser with defensive capabilities with a supersonic seaskimmer would have been impressive. There’s nothing that says “watch out! Iran’s a badass!” about puttering up in a zodiac boat to affix a limpet mine. That would literally only work against a limpdick country’s unarmed commercial tanker vessel.

    Reply
  26. Arabic – in this case Persian – machismo. You can not appear weak, you can not just talk tough, you have to actually be tough/ruthless.

    Reply
  27. YES! We must suppress these different opinions. High time we regulate the web and shut down evil right wing propaganda sites like “Next Big Future” (queue ominous music of foreboding).

    Reply
  28. Sam, get the tinfoil hat off, loosen the belt around your waste and pull your head out. Iran has a history of this and promised to do it this time around as sanctions bite.

    Reply
  29. I do not appreciate you proclaiming Iran’s wrongdoing as fact..

    We are talking about the US government claims mostly. You do realize that, do you? And what’s more, we are talking about Trump and his Swamp administration. Mind you, at this point even Kim Jong-Un has more credibility than the US government.

    So even though it appears to be the case, how about we not jump the gun and wait for the proper investigation?

    Reply
  30. Add more as they are tugs, if you back away you are weak so you can scale up the attacks. Pretty much as schoolyard bullies, beating them up is pretty much the only thing who work.

    Bin Laden started his attacks on the US after the US involvement in Somalia. The US redraw after loosing one engagement. Conclusion they was weak pussies so he should attack.
    Ignoring that it was an pretty unwinnable war US had no interest in.
    US was there because Pakistani peacekeepers had taken an beating and asked for help.
    Using 50+ B52 and make an Berlin bonfire as parting gift would probably averted this, and no that would not be an nice thing to do.

    Reply
  31. Rater think Russia will hope for an long and bloody war.
    An oil price of $200/ barrel would fit them well.
    Iran is just an customer

    Reply
  32. This attacks was done with mines fastened to the ship, I assume this was done with divers or even an small boat while at harbor or at anchor.

    This is nothing you can continue to do then security is scaled up.

    Now you could use missiles, Iran has an anti ship missile who can be launched from an truck, or missiles or torpedoes from ships.
    All is an serious damage to ships. Using them would also be an declaration of war.

    The removal of an device was probably an mistake unless the mine could be easy traced back to Iran.

    Reply
  33. I’m with Jerry on this: I’ve adopted a personal ideal of leaving bad actors alone when confronted, as much as possible. However, even amongst the mildest mannered pillars of society, there are those with caprice and cooption in their fiery hearts. Ordinarily, if one simply avoids their tempestuous rhetoric, like thunderstorms their cooption squalls out and dissipates. Sometimes though, their intent is far less sanguine. Then its time to haul out the lawyers. Internationally, these would be the Diplomats, and barring resolution, then the Banks. Between the two, a lot gets done. 

    Just saying,
    GoatGuy ✓

    Reply
  34. You and me both. I’d love to think if we leave the bad actors alone they’d leave the world alone – but that’s not the way it works out.

    Reply
  35. The Trump administration has been at war with Iran since Trump first came into office!

    The US military is spending $81 billion a year protecting Persian Gulf oil supplies for oppressive countries that violate basic human rights and are not free.

    That money would be much better spent financing the deployment of small inherently safe floating nuclear reactors in remote American EEZ territorial waters (Wake Island, Jarvis Island, Baker Island, etc.) for the production of renewable: methanol, gasoline, jet fuel, fertilizers, and industrial chemicals.

    Reply
  36. I’m thinking you’re right on that…

    The thing is – I can come up with a number of logically consistent ideas why IRAN would think it’s a good idea. It may not make any sense to US – but if they can see a way to profit from or hurt the US that may be sufficient.

    Reply
  37. Think Iran’s gone too far for Russia? Or is planning on doing something that Russia thinks is bad?

    (The mind boggles about what RUSSIA might think is too far…)

    Reply
  38. Well if it stays in Gulf waters nobody cares. Unfortunately the plan is probably to push  US in full scale war with Iran and that likely includes ground invasion. US soldiers instead of guarding border with Mexico for example, would fight for the MIGA.

    Russia could easy supply Iran via Caspian Sea

    Reply
  39. Well if it stays in Gulf waters nobody cares. Unfortunately the plan is probably to push  US in full scale war with Iran and that likely includes ground invasion. US soldiers instead of guarding border with Mexico for example, would fight for the MIGA.

    Russia could easy supply Iran via Caspian Sea

    https://browse.startpage.com/do/show_picture.pl?l=english&rais=1&oiu=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.vanityfair.com%2Fphotos%2F59c91a004f79bc3b7908b4e8%2Fmaster%2Fw_768%2Cc_limit%2Fjared-and-the-observer-11-17-01.jpg&sp=c820114ba89129def3598832efdeac7c&t=default

    Reply
  40. Yes something is happening: nonverbal communication.

    Iran communicates, other people communicate back, etc etc.

    Reply
  41. Personally i’d love to leave them alone. Sure they are a bit of a backwards theocracy but if they would not enrich and not fund terror i’d say to let them be.

    Reply
  42. Makes perfect sense- the Iranians want to demonstrate that they can do this so that everyone knows that if there is a shooting war in the gulf that they can respond with attacks like this.

    Reply
  43. Um… a revolution of a revolution is then kind of like the enemy of one’s enemy being one’s friend? Wait… my head hurts.

    Reply
  44. Actually, the InterWebz has more than enough hypocritical propaganda outlets. Endless trolling by the Left. As is your comment.

    Reply
  45. Iran’s total theocracy is a dungheap on the world. The people of Iran deserve better than these stone age creeps. They have already made Iran hell. Now they want to do the same to the rest of the ME. No to invasion. Yes to revolution.

    Reply
  46. I think a secret+public trust/shaming maneuver is likely to deliver best results. 

    SECRET (no-blink, trust forming!)…

    (01) — We’re to overfly, 24:7:365
    (02) — Some you’ll see, others you won’t.  
    (03) — We will have RADAR and LIDAR detectors working
    (04) — If your SAMs light ’em up, they’ll be bombed. 
    (05) — And we’ll announce simultaneously to international press of it.
    (06) — Your UN complaints will be rebuffed and vetoed.

    (07) — We will be closely patrolling the Gulf. 
    (08) — Approach our ships, you’ll be blown out of the water. 
    (09) — Approach passing tankers, kablooey.
    (10) — Approach foreign docks, kablooey.
    (11) — Mine the gulf… kablooey.
    (12) — Deploy S₂S (surface-to-sea) missiles, kablooey.

    … AND DO IT …

    PUBLIC

    (21) — Deploy Coasties, Navy, Air Force, Marines to allied ports
    (22) — Deliver a few billion in Hueys, Ospreys, similar
    (23) — Ramp up deliveries of cruise missiles, over-horizon radar
    (24) — Deploy many more AWACS and air-combat craft
    (25) — Keep up international pressure;
    (26) — UN embargo campaign. Get resistance. Smile. Carry big stick.
    (27) — Threaten sanctions, embargoes on non-conforming US trade partners.
    (28) — Establish “side channel” for shut-down Iranian exports

    Iran won’t be able to export or import.  
    It gets the message across.

    Negotiate, or return to the Stone Age.
    One decade at a time.

    Just saying,
    GoatGuy ✓

    Reply
  47. What evidence could be any stronger than an Iranian boat pulling up alongside a tanker to remove an unexploded mine? The only question in my mind is whether it is an Iranian boat with Iranian actors aboard. I’m sure there is a classified satellite track to go with it. Conspiracy theories will be so easy to dismantle, where is the proof of your various theories, conspiracy theorists?

    The Iranian calculus seems pretty clear to me. Race toward a nuclear weapon and also provoke the United States and company in order to prove that we are impotent, force another even better deal to be made. It’s basically turning the tables.

    The level of distrust among Americans of their own government seems to be at an all-time high, which is perhaps a greater threat to world security than our apathy to this sort of thing as WW2 was getting under way. I think they could start atmospheric testing their new nukes and it wouldn’t make a difference to most people, nobody is any wiser what that means for the world. Nobody seems willing to fight for anything at all, people turn a blind eye to ethnic cleansing these days. I think you have to be an idiot to think that way, maybe we’re just too privileged over here.

    I think you need to snuff out these small blazes before they become raging infernos. My thought is to launch a volley of tomahawk missiles at Iranian uranium facilities (sure, radiation leaks and all) and simultaneously begin destroying their Iranian Navy.

    Reply
  48. Oh and this time Russians would have to take Iran side. Putin will probably piss himself couple times, when thinking about confronting mighty US military. But he has no choice…

    Reply
  49. While the Saudis do stand to make good if a war in the Persian gulf goes exactly right, they also stand to be badly messed up if the war goes wrong (say if THEIR oil tankers get sunk to the point that their exports dry up).

    The Russians on the other hand have the same level of benefit while being in a much safer position.

    The USA doesn’t net export oil (at this point in time) so no net benefit while still having the near certain increase in expenses in the event of a big war.

    Of course these all assume nations acting as a nation. There are sub sections within these nations (and a lot of others too) that could benefit a lot even if the nation as a whole does not.

    Reply
  50. After the Iraq debacle, I have zero faith in our government on this issue especially since the same morons who got us into that are now in charge again (think Bolton). If the chicken hawks try to drag us into a war with Iran, it’s time for some criminal investigations followed by hangings for treason.

    Reply
  51. Next Big Future, I think the US has more than enough propaganda outlets, it does not need another. Using the videos of a notorious US propaganda outlet does not give the claims any greater validity or credibility. In the contrary it just undermines them. Foxtrot Alpha already handles the US propaganda campaign online.

    Reply
  52. it makes an awful lot of sense (to me).
    More knowledge makes it more making sense. There are a ‘zillion’ actors, and a ‘zillion’ different camps.
    History will (partially) tell

    Reply
  53. I frankly think that we’d have little to gain from this… of course the assumes our government is rational…

    Reply
  54. This is unbelievable stupid. I the face of numerous PROVEN false flag attacks originating from the USA to write such a headline is more than stupid, its irresponsible.

    Reply
  55. This makes no sense. Iran had the least to gain by doing this. First off, diplomatically it would make no sense attacking Japanese ships in the middle of a visit by Japanese prime minister. Second Iran has the least to gain economically from this. Note, those that would benefit the most are the Saudis followed closely by Russia.

    Reply

Leave a Comment