The Lumberjack



Students Serving The Cal Poly Humboldt Campus and Community Since 1929

Tag: CIA

  • War on the Horizon? Iran Blamed for Oil Field Attacks

    War on the Horizon? Iran Blamed for Oil Field Attacks

    United Nations pointed to Iran after Houthi rebels initially claim Saudi Aramco attacks

    On Sept. 14, drones attacked two of Saudi Aramco’s oil plants and the United States quickly pointed fingers at Iran as the perpetrator, sending military aid to Saudi Arabia.

    Iranian-backed Houthi rebels initially claimed the attack as their own, reporting that they sent missiles from Yemen, but U.S. Secretary of State and former CIA Director Mike Pompeo were adamant that Iran was to blame for the attacks on the Abqaiq and Khurais oil facilities. Pompeo commented on the incident during an episode of CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

    “No reasonable person doubts precisely who conducted these strikes,” Pompeo said. “And it is the intelligence community’s determination that it is likely the case that these were launched from Iran.”

    Iran drew global attention by targeting Saudi Arabia, the world’s oil exportation leader. In an interview on 60 Minutes, Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia Mohammad Bin Salman put the attack in context.

    “This attack didn’t hit the heart of the Saudi energy industry, but rather the heart of the global energy industry,” Bin Salman said. “It disrupted 5.5% of the world’s energy needs; the needs of the U.S. and China and the whole world.”

    Iran and Saudi Arabia both continue to try to gain influence in the Middle East, and the ongoing conflict in Yemen proves that while they may not want full-scale war, neither side fears conflict.

    After meeting with President Donald Trump and his national security team, U.S. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper explained Trump’s approval of military support in response to Iran’s aggression during a press conference at the Pentagon.

    CNN’s coverage of US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and Gen. Joseph Dunford announcing the United States sending troops to Saudi Arabia.

    “It is clear based on detailed exploitation conducted by Saudi, United States and other international investigative teams that the weapons used in the attack were Iranian-produced, and were not launched from Yemen as was initially claimed,” Esper said. “All indications are that Iran was responsible for the attack.”

    Esper added that in response to the attacks and a Saudi call for help, the U.S. will deploy defensive forces focused on air and missile defense.

    At the United Nations General Assembly, the leaders of Germany, France and the U.K. released a joint statement concurring with the U.S.

    “It is clear to us that Iran bears responsibility for this attack,” the statement said. “There is no other plausible explanation. We support ongoing investigations to establish further detail.”

    Trump said the U.S. also employed economic measures against Iran.

    “We have just sanctioned the Iranian National Bank,” Trump said. “That is their central banking system and it’s going to be at the highest level of sanctions.”

    CBS News coverage of Trump’s announcement of new Iran sanctions on national bank.

    However, President of Iran Hassan Rouhani has denied Iran’s fault. Rouhani called the attack a retaliation from Yemen for unwanted outside influence.

    “The people of Yemen are forced to respond to all the violations and the flood of weapons from U.S. and Europe toward Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates,” Rouhani said in a televised press conference in Ankara. “They cannot show legitimate defense in the face of their country being destroyed.”

  • North Korea = no worry

    North Korea = no worry

    By | Philip Santos

    Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un should be best friends. When I read about escalating tensions between Trump and Kim, I can’t help but see two short, chubby kids fighting over who gets to play in the sandbox. The sandbox tale typically ends with a long-lasting friendship after two people discover how much they have in common. Trump and Kim both employ inflammatory statements, exaggerate oppositional views, resort to strong arm tactics and utilize name calling on a regular basis. This is why U.S. relations with North Korea have become so frightening. We have two similar archetypes locked into a childish war of words, which is precisely why we don’t need to go bunker shopping just yet.

    North Korea agreed to abandon “all nuclear weapons and existing programs” in 2005 during what was called the “six-party talks.” Clearly, that didn’t happen, but it shows us that the polar extreme of today’s situation wasn’t so long ago. More recently in 2015, North Korea agreed to suspend nuclear testing in return for the cessation of the annual U.S.-South Korea joint-military exercises. The U.S. rejected that offer. The takeaway from this is that North Korea has come to the table before, and I think that will continue to be the case.

    What has pushed North Korea away from the negotiating table and into the war room is what we see Trump doing today: name calling and ridiculing. Former president Bush labeled North Korea as part of the “axis of evil,” The Interview portrayed the plotted assassination of Kim and now Trump has gone and said we would “totally destroy” North Korea. These events prompted displays of aggression by North Korea, ranging from withdrawal from disarmament talks to testing missiles. The common theme amongst these events is that they were reactionary and some might even say defensive. The U.S. has “totally destroyed” North Korea once before during the Korean War.

    Curtis LeMay, head of the U.S. Air Force Strategic Air Command during the conflict, would later boast in an article from the Guardian that the U.S. bombing campaign killed about 20% of the population.

    “We went over there and fought the war and eventually burned down every town in North Korea,” LeMay said.

    When the President trumpets about “totally destroying” North Korea, he’s rubbing the pain of history into a wound that hasn’t ever healed. If Trump can keep a lid on statements like that, we’ll be just fine.

    I feel a bit crazy for thinking this, but I think North Korea’s actions are somewhat rational. First consider that, as previously mentioned, the U.S. has demolished North Korea before. The track record since then doesn’t get any better – U.S. weapons have become more powerful and plentiful as a result of endless decades of war. Secondly, the U.S. has a long history of foreign intervention, even when there weren’t necessarily direct threats. I have a book called Killing Hope by William Blum that examines every U.S. Military and CIA intervention since World War II. It was printed in 1995 and has a chapter for each country the U.S. has intervened in. There are 55 chapters. Kim isn’t irrational for being weary of the U.S. His hostility makes a lot of sense. I find these indicators of ration as reasons for relief, because I think Kim understands that any attack on his part would result in the destruction of his country. For that reason, I don’t see him authorizing an attack on foreign countries.

    So why all the showmanship then? Well, the kid throwing a tantrum wants to be heard. Having nuclear power means you have more to say at the table and it might be the only way for North Korea. It may be savvy of U.S. to take North Korea out of corner time, sit down with them to hear their side and maybe even apologize for the hurt that’s been done. But can you see Trump, a man who still eats well done steaks swimming in ketchup, changing his nature to make this possible? I think he’s a playground bully who’d rather see the sandbox filled than change or apologize – and that is what we need to be afraid of.