Tanker Attacks in the Gulf: In Search of a Casus Belli?

When I heard about four Saudi tankers that sustained "serious damage" I immediately thought that something was rotten in the state of Denmark.

An Act of Sabotage by Iran or a Hastily Made Up Casus Belli?

Let's take a look at the main elements of the story.

First, there were no pictures initially. We had no idea what Saudi Arabia meant by serious damage. Then a short footage from RT Arabic emerged showing a rather small hole at the flat transom stern of a Norwegian-flagged tanker.

Saudi TV showed some pictures apparently but nothing close up or specific.

BBC reported subsequently that the Norwegian company in question said that their tanker was struck by an unknown object.

This is the RT clip showing the extent of the damage:

Second, there were no injuries, no deaths, no sunken ships and no oil spilled. And there were no explosions.

Though the UAE maintained that the four ships were damaged by sabotage, local authorities at Fujairah denied media reports of explosions at the harbor.

Somehow, mysterious figures silently made four little holes in Saudi tankers and no one had seen or heard anything.

Of course, that did not prevent media outlets from reporting explosions.

Tensions rose this month after shipping in the Gulf of Oman was damaged by a series of mystery explosions. 

Third, Lloyd's of London complained that Saudi authorities didn't share any visuals with them and provided no additional information.

Global maritime news website have questioned the details surrounding the incident. The influential Lloyds List Maritime Intelligence, for example, criticised the authorities for "scant" information. 

Quoting the maritime security company Dryad Global, it said: "Saudi reticence to report the incident accurately within their own media channels and the current failure to provide imagery evidence of the attack raises important questions as to the nature of the attack."

This struck me especially odd since Lloyd's is the biggest reinsurance company in the world. If you wanted someone to pay for those damages you would have to come forward. Why would you hide such details?

Fourth, American experts examined the tankers and determined with 24 hours that this was the act of Iranian authorities or militias working with Iran.

The team of US military investigators discovered large holes in all four of the affected ships and believe they were caused by explosive charges, the Associated Press reports, quoting an unnamed official. They did not explain how the damage was linked to Iran. 

CBS carried a similar report quoting unnamed US officials. 

They can't even analyze the contents of a plane's black box for a couple of weeks. It takes weeks to analyse the explosive residue of a device and to get other forensic details right. Here, they took a quick look at the holes and they knew right away that it was made by an Iranian device, case closed.

Fifth, the New York Times reported that intelligence sources shared with their reporters a picture of a small boat that belonged to Iranian paramilitary forces carrying missiles. The paper added that John Bolton, Trump's national security advisor and secretary of state Mike Pompeo used this picture as proof of Iran's belligerent intentions.

Finally, let's think for a minute. Because when it comes to Iran no one seems to be able to do that.

Let's assume Iran was behind this. Let's say they sent some commando units to make small holes in Saudi tankers while being careful not to spill any oil and damage the ships significantly. And they did so without any explosives.

Why would they do something like that? What do they have to gain by provoking the US and its highly unstable president? What do four small holes in Saudi tankers achieve? Is this really a deterrent? Or sign of Iranian superiority? What did they gain with such a stunt?

In short, I don't believe for a minute that this hastily arranged clumsy plot was something Iran cooked up. The evidence is not there, the act has no deterrent value to anyone and it makes no sense for them to goad Trump at this juncture for little or no gain.

Then who did it?

Let's see who might benefit from this.

The Three Amigos

There are three people who might benefit from heightened hostilities between Iran and the US.

The first is the Orange Man.

As you know, Trump pulled out of the nuclear deal, Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) even though his own intelligence agencies determined that Iran was largely in compliance of the treaty. His frequent and highly belligerent attacks on Iran is helping the conservative clergy to regain some of their lost popularity. The sanctions he imposed is hurting ordinary Iranians, ensuring the demise of moderates in the next elections.

Trump sent out aides to tell gullible reporters that he did not want any war with Iran and the following day he threatened to wipe the entire country out (which earned him an elegant rebuke from Zarif).

A confrontation with Iran would be a highly beneficial for Trump as it would allow him to change the subject and set the agenda.

You see, he is in a serious struggle with the House of Representatives to make sure that the Democrats do not have access to his tax returns and his shady dealings.

People assume that Steve Mnuchin refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena would be enough to shield him from scrutiny. It won't be. New York State is prepared to send all they have to the committee. And that could prove to be very damaging for Trump who almost certainly laundred hundreds of millions of dollars for Russian crime outfits in the last two decades.

A hot confrontation with the demonized mullahs would make wonders for his popularity, as Democrats, afraid to be labeled unpatriotic, would stop these investigations to present a united front with him. (Which is something the Republicans would never do but that is another story)

The second beneficiary is Bibi Netanyahu and for similar reasons.

As I explained previously, there are a number of serious corruption cases about him, his wife and  several people close to him. In the sound and fury of Israeli elections, most media outlets lost track of the attorney general's announcement of his decision to consider indicting the prime minister. He declared, in any event, that there was enough evidence to do so. Which is bigly.

Avichai Mandelblit, a Netanyahu appointee, probably left it that so as not to be accused of influencing electoral process, though some observers suggested that Netanyahu actually called the elections to stop Mandelblit from indicting him right away. He knew that the dossier was completed last November and an indictment was being discussed in December.

That brings me to the timetable question.

The Attorney General will announce his decision in the coming months. A hearing will be held and after that the decision to indict will be rendered. In Israel a sitting prime minister can be indicted. Previously, when Yitzhak Rabin and Ehud Olmert were indicted, they resigned voluntarily but if Netanyahu decides to stay in office no one knows whether this is acceptable or not as there is no precedent.

The case will likely be reviewed by the Supreme Court and therein lies his problem.

The Supreme Court's Chief Justice is Esther Hayut, a brilliant and independent jurist. Netanyahu tried very hard to stop her appointment but failed. He now wants the Justice Minister select the Supreme Court judges with the cabinet and Knesset giving their stamp of approval.

And Netanyahu will also try to change the law about the immunity of Knesset members.

Netanyahu is expected to be indicted pending a hearing. If Netanyahu can’t get out of the hearing, and if after that hearing Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit decides not to indict him, I can only assume that there will be a big legal battle, culminating in an appeal to the Supreme Court over an unreasonable decision.

The new government might even try to limit the authority of the Supreme Court something the current justice minister from the conservative HaBayit HaYehudi party was itching to do.

On the other hand, if the new Netanyahu government rushes to amend the law pertaining to the immunity of Knesset members, or if, in the name of “government reform,” it tries some other ploy, it will be necessary to appeal to the millions of people who voted against Netanyahu in the last April election.

But all of this will take time. He hasn't even formed the government. So Netanyahu has every incentive to use "I am your big daddy and I can protect you from the big bad wolf" card that served him well so far. Heightened hostilities would really work for him.

The third beneficiary if Mohammed bin Salman, whose name is typically abbreviated to sound like a graduate degree program (MBS).

His troubles in the aftermath of the Adnan Khashoggi merder are well documented. He faces a lot of resistance from other royal family members.

His international standing and the carefully cultivated reformist prince image are badly damaged. The war in Yemen is going badly and the royal treasury is hemorrhaging billions because of his adventures.

Of the three, my money is on him. The ineptitude of the sabotage also points the finger to Saudi operatives. My guess is that he was and is counting on Netanyahu goading Trump into bombing Iran into oblivion as they both have something to gain from such confrontation.

After an initial vacillation, Trump has hardened his rhetoric and ordered that 1500 troops sent to the region in addition to an aircraft carrier and bomber planes.

So the question is, will this silly plot to incriminate Iran lead to an actual war.

It actually might.

With all three players having a lot to gain from a conflict and Mike Pompeo and John Bolton pushing for a regime change in Iran, all it would take is a misunderstanding or another "act of sabotage" under murky circumstances, such as a small boat firing at a US ship, and you could have a major war.

I think the photo shared with the New York Times was there for a reason.

And now Trump used this incident to bypass Congress to sell arms to Saudi Arabia.

Consider me worried.