A Precision Strike on United States Credibility - Shattering a United States Paradigm by Alastair Crooke!
(2019-09-23 at 13:28:31 )

A Precision Strike on United States Credibility - Shattering a United States Paradigm by Alastair Crooke

The precision attack on the Saudi "jewel in the crown", crude-processing installation last week, is also a precision assault on Saudi credibility, on the believability of the United States security "umbrella", and a humiliation for Donald Trump, and particularly to the United States of Americas image as a competent military and intelligence power.

Gulf States will be pursing their lips as they consider now their own vulnerabilities and question their reliance on that United States umbrella.

Even the Pentagon might be questioning, "what then - is the point to CentCom" in light of what has happened?

And above all, Israel will be experiencing a very chill wind sending shivers up the spine: Israelis cannot but be a tad struck in awe at the attacks precise targeting and technical efficacy.

Quite impressive - especially given that Saudi spent $65 billion on weaponry last year, to no good avail.

Facing this humiliation, the United States Administration has been "blowing smoke": tossing around red-herrings about the origin and launch of the UAVs and cruise missiles.

"It can not be AnsarAllah (the Houthis), because such an operation was sophisticated beyond their capabilities".

Apart from the obvious Orientalism to this assertion (for, if Hizbullah can manufacture smart drones and smart cruise missiles, why should the Houthis not be able so to do?), do the exact, individual contributions towards the strike on Abqaiq really matter?

What is most telling is that the United States - with all its massive resources in the Gulf - cannot provide the evidence from whence came these UAVs to Abqaiq.

Actually, the ambiguity about the strike modus operandi represents just another layer to the sophistication of the attack.

The United States is "blowing smoke" about launch sites mainly to divert from the very obvious (but embarrassing) fact that the raining down of missiles on Abqaiq, primordially owes to the Saudi war on Yemen (supported unreservedly by Donald Trump).

The Houthis have claimed the attack; they say they will demonstrate their weaponry (which certainly in the case of the Houthi Quds 1 cruise missile is no mere copy of the Iranian Soumar missile - see "here"), and promise to repeat their attacks in the near future.

What the precision strike has done is to shatter the "vessel" of the United States posing as somehow "guardian" of the Gulf, and guarantor of the crude oil lifeblood feeding into the veins of a fragile world economy.

This to say, it was a precision strike aimed at the prevailing paradigm - and it scored a direct hit.

It exposed the hollowness of both claims. Anthony Cordesman writes, "the strikes on Saudi Arabia provide a clear strategic warning that the United States era of air supremacy in the Gulf, and the near United States monopoly on precision strike capability, is rapidly fading".

Were the Iranians directly or indirectly involved?

Well.. it does not really matter.

To understand the implications properly, it should be understood as somehow a joint message - coming from a common front (Iran, Syria, Hizbullah, Hash d a-Shaibi and the Houthis).

This was about blasting the wider sanctions crisis to a head: a strategic (missile) popping of the over-inflated "balloon" of the efficacy of United States "maximum pressure" tactics.

President Trumps "sanctioning-tariffing the world" had to be brought to a head - and be exploded.

Russia and China would almost certainly concur, and (quietly) applaud.

There are clear risks to this approach.

Will the message be heard correctly in Washington,D.C.?

For, as Gareth Porter points out in a different context, Washington,D.C.s ability to comprehend, or to "read well", its "enemies" mind seems to have been somehow lost - out of a failure in Washington,D.C. to discover any strain of empathy towards "otherness" (either Iranian, Chinese or Russian).

So the prospects, probably, are not great.

Washington,D.C. will not "get it", but rather, may double-down, with potentially disastrous consequences. Porter writes:

"The Abqaiq strike is also a dramatic demonstration of Irans ability to surprise the United States strategically, [thus] upsetting its political-military plans.

Iran has spent the last two decades preparing for an eventual confrontation with the United States, and the result is a new generation of drones and cruise missiles that give Iran the ability to counter far more effectively any United States effort to destroy its military assets and to target United States bases across the Middle East.

"The United States was apparently taken by surprise when Iran shot down a high-altitude .. surveillance drone .. Irans air defence system has been continually upgraded, beginning with the Russian S-300 system it received in 2016.

Iran also just unveiled in 2019 its Bavar-373 air defence system, which it regards as closer to the Russian S-400 system coveted by India and Turkey - than to the S-300 system.

"Then there is Irans development of a fleet of military drones, which has prompted one analyst to call Iran a "drone superpower".

Its drone accomplishments reportedly include the Shahed-171 "stealth drone" with precision-guided missiles, and the Shahed-129, which it reverse-engineered from the United States Sentinel RQ-170 and the MQ-1 Predator".

Understanding Porters message represents the key to comprehending the nature of the "Great Shift" taking place in the region.

Robot planes and drones - simply - have changed the calculus of war. The old verities no longer hold - there is no simple United States military solution to Iran.

An United States attack on Iran will bring only a firm Iranian response - and escalation.

A full United States invasion - as in the 2003 invasion of Iraq - is no longer within United States capabilities.

There is only a political answer.

But for now, the United States and MbS both, are in a stage of denial: the latter apparently believes that continuing with the partial sale of Aramco might solve his problems (though markets have just re-awoken to geo-political risk to assets, such as Aramco), and President Trump seems still to believe that maximum pressure might still come up trumps.

For the rest of us, "the political" is pretty obvious for Saudi Arabia: Accept defeat in Yemen, and with it, its corollary - engaging with Iran and Russia is a sine qua non for achieving any settlement.

For sure it will be costly for MbS, both politically and financially.

But what is the alternative?

Wait upon further Abqaiqs?

To be fair, there are reports that the al-Saud understand their situation now to be existential. We shall see.

And for President Trump, the lesson surely is clear.

The strike on Abqaiq could have been easily worse (with greater interruption to oil supplies).

Oil markets and markets more generally have woken up to the geo-political risks to President Trumps maximum pressure tactics. And they are becoming nervous, as world trade falters.

Headlines such as "Stunning weekend attacks take out 50% of Saudi Arabias oil output.. Can the economy survive a higher oil price..?" may be a bit too alarmist, but they make the point: Supply disruption could easily tip the fragile United States and the global economy into recession, were higher prices to be sustained.

No one is more aware of this than President Trump because his re-election chances in 2020 may hinge on whether the United States can stay out of recession.

Generally speaking, United States Presidents who seek a second term are always re-elected, unless they have a recession late in their first term. This happened to Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush - both lost re-election bids because of recessions on their watches.

Already both Saudi Arabia and Donald Trump are rowing back from a possible (diversionary) confrontation with Iran (in lieu of addressing the Yemen issue, which remains at the root of Saudis difficulties).

The question is how long denial over the flaws to the maximum-pressure Iran policy might continue?

Up to the elections? Probably yes.

President Trump has some constituency egos he must stroke - in parallel to avoiding the potentially fatal landmine of recession - if he is to gain a second term.

And that means pandering to the Evangelical and AIPAC obsession with Iran as our eras "cosmic evil" - one positive "straw in the wind" might be the end to the Netanyahu reign (although Gantz is no Iran "dove").

Reprinted here from the "Strategic Culture Foundation" provides a platform for exclusive analysis, research and policy comment on Eurasian and global affairs. We are covering political, economic, social and security issues worldwide. Since 2005 our journal has published thousands of analytical briefs and commentaries with the unique perspective of independent contributors. SCF works to broaden and diversify expert discussion by focusing on hidden aspects of international politics and unconventional thinking. Benefiting from the expanding power of the Internet, we work to spread reliable information, critical thought and progressive ideas.