The BBC has reported that:
...Few details have been released about the incident, which is said to have taken place at about 06:00 (02:00 GMT) on Sunday within UAE territorial waters in the Gulf of Oman, east of the emirate of Fujairah.
The UAE foreign ministry said four commercial ships had been targeted in a "sabotage attack" near Fujairah port, just outside the Strait of Hormuz.
There were no casualties but Saudi Arabia said two of its ships had suffered "significant damage".
The Saudi energy minister, Khalid al-Falih, said one of the tankers had been on its way to be loaded with Saudi oil which was to be delivered to customers in the US.
Another damaged tanker was Norwegian-registered, while the fourth was reportedly UAE-flagged.
The attacks were minimal: no oil spills, no casualties, relatively minor damage. It comes at a time when tensions between the US and Iran are rising, per the NY Times:
WASHINGTON — At a meeting of President Trump’s top national security aides last Thursday, Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan presented an updated military plan that envisions sending as many as 120,000 troops to the Middle East should Iran attack American forces or accelerate work on nuclear weapons, administration officials said.
The revisions were ordered by hard-liners led by John R. Bolton, Mr. Trump’s national security adviser. They do not call for a land invasion of Iran, which would require vastly more troops, officials said.
Since becoming national security advisor, Bolton has reportedly been urging action on Iran, a long-time personal obsession. The administration recently deployed forces to the region to add to the US military presence. Again from the Times:
As recently as late April, an American intelligence analysis indicated that Iran had no short-term desire to provoke a conflict. But new intelligence reports, including intercepts, imagery and other information, have since indicated that Iran was building up its proxy forces’ readiness to fight and was preparing them to attack American forces in the region.
The new intelligence reports surfaced on the afternoon of May 3, Mr. Shanahan told Congress last week. On May 5, Mr. Bolton announced the first of new deployments to the Persian Gulf, including bombers and an aircraft carrier.
According to the BBC, the reaction from Iran has been:
Iran has called for a full investigation into the incident which it described as "worrisome".
At the White House on Monday, US President Donald Trump issued a warning to Iran. "If they do anything, it would be a very bad mistake... If they do anything they will suffer greatly."
But Iranian President Hassan Rouhani was forthright in his response, suggesting the country was "too great to be intimidated by anyone".
"God willing we will pass this difficult period with glory and our heads held high, and defeat the enemy," he said in a meeting with clerics late on Monday.
The BBC report notes that there is a certain amount of skepticism about the attacks and US charges that Iran was behind them. Saudi Arabia has been less than forthcoming in its own media about the attacks, and there is a lack of evidence about how serious the attacks were, what the damage looks like, and other details.
NBC News reports Israel, Saudi Arabia, and aides around Trump all want a confrontation with Iran.
The rationale for taking an aggressive stance with Tehran may differ, but leaders in Tel Aviv, Riyadh and hawks in Washington share a common view that diplomacy with Iran is mostly futile and that the regime will only respond to massive economic pressure and, if necessary, military force.
"The behavior and objectives of the regime are not going to change," John Bolton, now Trump's national security adviser, said at a convention organized by an Iranian opposition group in 2017. "Therefore the only solution is to change the regime itself."
The New York Times reports US Allies are skeptical of US claims about Iran.
Intelligence and military officials in Europe as well as in the United States said that over the past year, most aggressive moves have originated not in Tehran, but in Washington — where John R. Bolton, the national security adviser, has prodded President Trump into backing Iran into a corner.
Republicans seem oblivious to the possibility of blowback from conflict with Iran — even casual. Senator Tom Cotton, (R — Arkansas) is quite blithe about how it would go. Meteor Blades links to an interview with Cotton where the following statement was made:
“Could we win a war with Iran?” asked Hoover.
“Yes,” said Cotton.
“That didn’t take you a second,” she said.
“Two strikes: the first strike and a last strike,” Cotton said.
The Dots Are Just Waiting To Be Connected… The Picture, It Is Not Pretty...
Shades of Tom Clancy. If someone was writing an action-suspense-horror thriller, it’s hard not to see how all the plot elements come together in a perfect storm:
- Fanatic war-hungry aides around an incompetent, narcissist president under tremendous political pressure and multiple investigations at home.
- A Democratic House attempting to rein him in — but with mixed impulses fighting against each other.
- Foreign ‘allies’ with their own agenda who have already demonstrated great influence over the administration (and that’s just what we know about on the surface.)
- An administration that lies about everything, under the random-impulse leadership of a sociopath in over his head, doubling down on his grasp on power, eager to change the subject.
- A leader aided and abetted by a political party that learned nothing from 911, Afghanistan or Iraq.
- An aggressive media propaganda operation (Fox) backing him and a mainstream media that has been slow to learn from its missteps on the Iraq war run-up and the 2016 election.
- A trade war that is becoming increasingly painful for America — and Trump’s base.
- Can you say Gulf of Tonkin? Can you say Wag the Dog?
In hindsight, it’s painfully clear that reluctance to address the incompetence and worse behind 911, the invasion of Iraq, and the massive economic collapse of 2008 — thanks to the very same people and political interests — has set us up to lather, rinse, repeat. Can Democrats hope to prevail against Trump if he gets us into a war — or will they be too terrified of taking on let alone impeaching a War President, when they (mostly) fell all over themselves to line up behind George W. Bush? Someone should give real consideration to the idea that Democrats should start impeachment hearings now, so that Trump can’t go to war to take it off the table. There are already more than enough reasons. (Chuck? Nancy? Hello?)
How on earth does Vladimir Putin not walk around all day with a shit-eating grin on his face? Trump is the gift that keeps on giving.
This damn-well looks like a prophecy for our times.