Mike Pompeo gathered himself some “important information” during his trip to Saudi Arabia, America’s top diplomat told reporters on Thursday, at the conclusion of his visit to the kingdom, where he chatted with Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman.
The Saudis on Wednesday held a veritable exhibition of wreckage from the drone and missile strikes on the country’s oil infrastructure. The defense ministry said the attacks were “unquestionably” orchestrated by Iran. The US is expected to make some manner of declassified report public soon.
“I’ll be able to give the president some important information about how it is we should think about proceeding”, Pompeo said Thursday, adding that there’s “enormous” consensus in the Mideast that Iran was behind the attack.
Read more: Iran’s Zarif Tells CNN He Wishes Trump Weren’t Crazy, But ‘All-Out War’ May Be Coming
Referencing Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif’s comments to CNN, Pompeo said the following after a meeting with Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed:
We are still striving to build out a coalition in an act of diplomacy while the foreign minister of Iran is threatening all out war and to fight to the last American. We’re here to build a coalition aimed at achieving peace.
Zarif’s remarks were taken totally out of context by Pompeo. Zarif was asked, by CNN, what would happen if the US and Saudi Arabia attacked Iran. He then responded that the result would be “all-out war”. Besides, Pompeo is acting as though he would have expected a different response from the sanctioned Iranian diplomat – that’s rather disingenuous.
Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that Trump’s national security council will convene a meeting on Friday to discuss military options being drawn up on Thursday.
“Senior national security officials from across the government are scheduled to meet Thursday to refine a list of potential targets to strike in Iran, should President Trump order a military retaliation for missile and drone attacks on Saudi Arabian oil fields last weekend”, senior officials told the paper. Here’s a bit more:
The Pentagon is advocating military strikes that one senior official described as at the lower end of options. The official said that any retaliation could focus on more clandestine operations – actions that military planners predict would not prompt an escalation by Iran.
These kinds of targets could include the sites where Iran launches cruise missiles and drones, and where the weaponry is stored. Under this scenario, the military option would include a diplomatic outreach campaign at the United Nations General Assembly in New York next week to muster support for the additional sanctions that Mr. Trump has ordered and other nonmilitary steps.
In addition to the limited strikes, the president will be presented with more aggressive options that could potentially entail sending additional US forces to the Mideast, a dramatic move that would represent a departure from Trump’s express desire to bring troops home and avoid further entanglements in the region.
On Wednesday, Trump told reporters he disagreed with staunch supporter Lindsey Graham on the desirability of haphazard military action. “Ask Lindsey, ‘How did going into Iraq work out?’”, Trump sarcastically quipped.
During the same remarks, he hinted that in due time, the US could still “do some dastardly things” to Iran in order to deter aggression against America’s allies in the region.
The president held fire in June after the IRGC downed a US drone, restraint Graham on Tuesday said was seen in Tehran as “a sign of weakness”.
New sanctions against the theocracy are set to be announced in the coming days, and as noted by the Times, any military action would be set against the UN General Assembly, a dramatic setup to be sure.
Read more:
‘Unquestionably Sponsored By Iran’: The Saudis Have Some Debris They’d Like You To Scope Out
From a headline service: “WSJ, citing multiple officials, reported Trump administration’s preferred option when it comes to responding to Iran’s alleged role in recent attacks on Saudi oil facilities remains a coordinated international response through the UN. Paper discussed how Trump has dialed back the rhetoric after initially noting US is “locked and loaded”. Noted this fits with his aversion to military intervention, but also reflects limits on his retaliatory options. Also pointed out that while Secretary of State Pompeo said on Wednesday the attacks were an “act of war”, the remarks were part of a speech about the need to pull together a coalition at the UN.”
Neither China nor Russia will agree to military action vs Iran.
“Senior national security officials from across the government are scheduled to meet Thursday to refine a list of potential targets to strike in Iran…” That would be Trump, Pompeo, what’s name, what’s name, what’s name and Jared. Wasn’t it what’s anme who said: “History repeats itself, the first as tragedy, then as farce”?
Try that again: “Senior national security officials from across the government are scheduled to meet Thursday to refine a list of potential targets to strike in Iran…” That would be Trump, Pompeo, what’s his name, what’s his name, what’s his name and Jared. Wasn’t it what’s his name who said: “History repeats itself, the first [time] as tragedy, then as farce”?
If we are hoping for a coherent Middle East policy, other than what has been blindly outsourced to Bibi and MBS, we won’t soon find one. Few in the US realize we have been arming a “coalition” in Yemen that has been fighting with and alongside Al-Qaeda and Islamic State affiliated groups, all “focused” against the Houthis and the apparent “enemy number 1” of Iran. The recent schism of this cozy group according to either Saudi and UAE alignment should come as no surprise. What’s his name was right, farce indeed. The American Empire still hasn’t enrolled in Orientalism 101. Awaiting more tragicomedy.
I don’t understand what the motivation is here for the US and Pompeo. Saudi Arabia ok I get it. After the Iraqi shit show, the division of its oil assets, the abundance of oil supply following shale boom… wtf is the motivation?
Are there any Iranian assets left in the US (like bank accounts and other investments)? If so, could these be frozen as “collateral” for rebuilding SA’s oil infrastructure destroyed in the attack?
It must be interesting trying to build a coalition when you’ve antagonized all your allies with threatening their country’s economy.