How drone attacks on Saudi Aramco might blow up
US-Iran tensions
Israeli air raids on Iranian-backed forces in Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria
may have spawned oil strikes, analyst suggests.
Highly disruptive drone attacks on Aramco oil facilities in eastern Saudi Arabia are arguably the most significant military
operation yet against the US-allied kingdom's critical infrastructure.
Saturday's attacks on petroleum and gas
processing plants in Khurais and Abqaiq, which Yemen's Iran-allied Houthi rebels have claimed responsibility
for, knocked down approximately 5.7 million barrels per day (BPD) of total
Saudi oil output.
That is over five percent of global crude
supply, a deficit which will take "weeks" rather than days to remedy and is likely to
drive up international oil prices.
The high-profile aerial offensives are
bound to further escalate mounting tensions between Iran and its
mostly non-state allies in the region on the one hand, and the United States and its close partners Saudi Arabia and Israel on the
other.
The US has already pointed the finger of blame at Iran. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo accused Tehran of having "launched an unprecedented
attack on the world's energy supply", while President Donald Trump later said the US is "locked and
loaded', and is "waiting to hear" from Riyadh about who attacked its
oil facilities. Meanwhile, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) promised to "confront and deal with this terrorist
aggression."
Iran denied the US allegations that it was
behind the attacks and said the claims were meant to justify
"actions" against it.
The escalation is likely
to scupper chances of diplomacy and negotiations between Washington and Tehran
over a crumbling nuclear deal signed in 2015 between Iran and world powers.
The US unilaterally withdrew from
the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on May 2018 and
reimposed crippling sanctions on Iran's oil industry and banking sector as
part of a "maximum pressure" campaign against it.
"The operation fits Iran's tit-for-tat pattern of resisting the US since it started to downgrade its JCPOA
commitments," Erwin van Veen, a senior research fellow at Clingendael's
Conflict Research Unit in the Netherlands, told Al Jazeera.
"We saw a significant escalation of US-condoned Israeli airstrikes across
Lebanon, Iraq and Syria," he said, referring to a succession of attacks last month against Iranian-backed forces in the
three countries. "Iran can only counter them asymmetrically and this is
the response to the US, kind of 'to call off your attack dog'."
Two scenarios
Shortly after the Aramco attacks, the Houthis, who
have been fighting a four-plus-year war of attrition in Yemen against a
Saudi-led and US-backed military coalition supporting Yemeni government forces,
claimed responsibility and described the offensive as their "right" to retaliate
"the airstrikes and the targeting of our civilians."
Yahya Saree, a Houthi spokesman, told the
rebel-backed Al Masirah TV based in Beirut that the Aramco attacks were carried out by 10 drones and in
"cooperation with the honorable people inside the [Saudi] kingdom",
suggesting the possible involvement of beleaguered Shia dissidents living in
the oil-rich Eastern Province.
In this account of events,
armed drones would have had to fly over 1,000 kilometers (621 miles) from Houthi-controlled territory in northwest Yemen across Saudi Arabia
to reach their targets in Abqaiq.
Another possible route for the aerial
vehicles could be a trajectory starting in northeast Yemen near the border with Oman and
traveling northbound through areas close to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Qatar before they could deliver the explosive
projectiles.
But analysts said either scenario might be
contested from an operational perspective, considering the Houthis' likely lack
of access to such advanced aerial attack systems, the vast geographical
distance from the point of departure to the destination in question, and lastly
the heavy air defense fortifications in place along the supposed flight route.
This raises the possibility of attacks on Aramco oil plants originating in
southern Iraq, which lies much closer to the Abqaiq and Khurais
facilities and where Iran-backed Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF, or Hashd
al-Shaabi) positions recently came under suspected Israeli attacks. Israel has neither confirmed nor denied being
behind those attacks.
In late June, US officials concluded that
an earlier May 14 drone attack on
Aramco's East-West pipeline near the central town of al-Duwadimi - which the
Houthis also claimed responsibility for - was launched from Iraq, not Yemen, implicating Tehran-allied
Shia militias.
According to people familiar with the assessment,
wreckage from Saturday's assaults indicated the employment of a different model of
drones and explosives than those witnessed in previous Houthi offensives within
Saudi territory.
On Sunday, a day after the Aramco attacks,
Middle East Eye quoted an unnamed senior Iraqi intelligence official as saying the operation was conducted from inside Iraq in
reprisal for a suspected Israeli drone
attacks against PMF bases. Iraq has denied the drone attack came
from there.
"In both cases, Houthi or Hashd, there is an autonomous motive in addition to any links with Iran, as the former suffered from American support for the Saudi-led military campaign in Yemen, while the latter suffered a number of air strikes recently," Erwin van Veen said.
"In both cases, Houthi or Hashd, there is an autonomous motive in addition to any links with Iran, as the former suffered from American support for the Saudi-led military campaign in Yemen, while the latter suffered a number of air strikes recently," Erwin van Veen said.
"It is worth bearing in mind though
that Houthis have more agency than some of the Iran-affiliated Hashd groups in
Iraq such as Kata'ib Hezbollah, Kata'ib Sayyid al-Shuhada and Kata'ib Imam Ali,
and plenty of motivation regardless of Iran."
Another scenario, suggested by the US and Saudi authorities, points to the
Iranian Revolutionary Guard directly targeting Aramco petroleum facilities with
cruise missiles launched from Iraqi or even Iranian territory.
Such a course of action does not generally
dovetail with Tehran's regional security strategy of indirect and asymmetric
engagement with conventionally superior adversaries while maintaining optimum
"plausible deniability".
Implications
for Iran-US diplomacy
The retaliatory offensive on critical Saudi oil
installations in Abqaiq and Khurais echoed warnings by Iranian President
Hassan Rouhani that if the US's "maximum pressure" campaign succeeds
in bringing Iran's crude exports down to zero, "then no oil will be exported from the Persian
Gulf".
By some estimates, Tehran only managed to
sell as little as 100,000 BPD of oil in July, that is roughly one-tenth of the
export volume on which the annual government budget has been predicated.
Yet, Trump's recent dismissal of former US National
Security Adviser John Bolton - after the notorious Iran hawk
"forcefully" opposed reduction of sanctions against Tehran - opened a
rare window of diplomacy and boosted hopes about bilateral US-Iranian
negotiations on the sidelines of the upcoming United Nations General Assembly
convention.
Along parallel lines, the centrist Rouhani
government has repeatedly stressed that talks with Washington are conditional
on the removal of US sanctions, with the president himself going so far as to
publicly declare that he would meet "anybody" to secure Iran's
national interests.
The opening came after French President Emmanuel Macron's government proposed
an extension of a $15bn line of
credit to Iran that would require the Trump administration to reissue oil
sanctions waivers, thus allowing Tehran to receive hard currency from the sale
of its crude oil to certain customers.
The financial package was partly discussed with
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif during his surprise visit to the French town of
Biarritz on the sidelines of the Group 7 summit in late August.
The Aramco attacks may cast a shadow over these
efforts to de-escalate spiraling Iran-US tensions, even though the White House
has declined to rule out a a potential meeting between Trump and Rouhani.
"The fact is that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary
Guard Corps (IRGC) wants to eliminate any possibility of talks with the United
States at the moment," an IRGC-affiliated intelligence analyst in Tehran
told Al Jazeera on condition of anonymity.
"They do not want this diplomatic process to
reach anywhere as they fear it might lead to the Rouhani government committing
to halt Iran's regional involvement, nuclear enrichment, and missile
development."
Despite Iranian domestic politics and consequent
obstacles in the way of diplomacy, most realistic assessments place the ball in
the US court.
"Firing war hawks like John Bolton is a step
in the right direction, but if the Trump administration is interested in
de-escalation, it needs to stop pursuing hawkish policies and pressure
campaigns that ultimately force Iran to choose between submission and
confrontation," Pouya Alimagham, a historian of the modern Middle East at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), told Al Jazeera.
"After all, it is not hard to imagine what
path a nation with a modern history of resistance to western intervention would
take under such circumstances."
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario