There’s Only One Enemy – That’s Iran

Podcast: Download

Subscribe: RSS | More

Darrell Castle explores the recent attacks on the Saudi oil fields and what that means, or could mean, for the United States and the world.

---

Transcription / Notes

THERE’S ONLY ONE ENEMY AND THAT’S IRAN

Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report. Today is Friday September 20, 2019, and on this Report I would like to spend our time discussing the recent attacks on the Saudi oil fields and what that means, or could mean, for the United States and the world. The attack was eerily familiar, especially coming so close to the 18^th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, so close to the dismissal of John Bolton, so close to the President’s talks with Iran, and so close to the Israeli elections.

Whatever the cause of this attack, and whoever did it, another big war seems like a real possibility. That real possibility has caused me to wonder I could get this Report finished before Armageddon. That sounds like an intentional exaggeration but if Russia became involved which seems likely, then all bets are off. The latest mock figures I’ve seen project 34 million dead in the first few days of a US—Russia nuclear exchange. I’m certain that no nation, especially not Russia, is going to lose a superpower war when it still has missiles in its silos. Insane people, those driven mad by power, would gamble the fate of millions for something that is not even their problem or their legitimate concern.

The failure of Saudi and U.S. radar and early warning systems to detect a massive drone attack on such a vital target makes me think that all U.S. interests and bases in the Middle East are very vulnerable. Whoever conducted this attack has the proven ability to disrupt the world’s oil supply and, thereby affect the economic interests of most, if not all, industrialized nations of the world.  Is the world really that vulnerable to a group of seemingly primitive people living in poverty stricken Yemen? If the official story is true, and by official I mean the one the FBI tells us we should either believe or be labeled a domestic terrorist, then I suppose so.

Why did the Saudi air defense systems, and even the U.S. systems in the Persian Gulf, along with U.S. satellite surveillance systems not detect this attack? That is a very good question but that is the explanation we are supposed to believe. It’s the same one asked but never answered on 9/11. How did a few Saudi tribesmen living in caves in Afghanistan defeat all 16 of the U.S. intelligence agencies, plus the world’s most sophisticated and most expensive military? That is one of those questions we are not supposed to ask because, well, because we’re just not. This Saudi attack seems to be the same kind of thing. Long before anyone knows for sure most of the media echoes the first report. Headlines from CNN, NBC, the Washington Post and other such news services said Iran attacks Saudi Arabia. It is way too early to know if that is true or not but I suppose that is what we are supposed to believe.

We want to believe the powers that be, and so our natural desire to believe the narrative that has been ingrained in us for decades is difficult to resist. Iran is the one and only enemy, we are constantly reminded. John Bolton was Director of National Security until he was fired recently by President Trump. He was the most obvious war hawk, especially toward Iran, and apparently was instrumental in torpedoing Trump’s recent entreaties toward Iran. When he was fired I thought Trump might be coming to his senses and some type of dialogue with Iran might still be possible, but it now appears that is not going to happen. This attack was a very interesting coincidence indeed, but then the Middle East is a perfect environment for a coincidence.

Paul O’Neil was Secretary of the Treasury in George W. Bush’s cabinet and in his book, “The Price of Loyalty” he said that in the first briefing of the National Security Council, conducted in January 2001, right after the inauguration, they discussed the coming invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and that was almost 9 months before the 9/11 attacks. I had the opportunity to be present for a speech by then Vice President Dick Cheney about 9/11 and he said that after the attacks, “we” decided to go on the offensive. The stories are obviously not compatible so I wonder if one of those two gentlemen could possibly have been lying.

The attacks of 9/11 also caused a lot of introspection among the media and the power elite in America. Why would they do that; what could be their motivation; and finally what is wrong with us that could provoke such a reaction. If Iran did the Saudi attacks then we don’t have to ask those questions because we know that Iran is the center of evil on this earth, and the Mullahs did say that if we can’t get our oil through the Persian Gulf then no one else will either.

However, if the Houthis in Yemen are responsible, as they publicly say they are, then that presents another problem. Saudi Arabia attacked the Houthis many years ago, not vice versa. They attacked because a coup in Yemen ousted from power the Saudi preferred dictator. The Saudis would not be able to conduct their war against the Houthis without the aid, weapons, and expertise of the United States, so it’s only a small stretch to say the United States is at least partially responsible for the humanitarian crisis that has resulted in Yemen.

Since the war in Yemen began, at least 100,000 Yemeni civilians have been killed and millions are on the verge of starvation. That would seem to be enough of a reason to launch the attacks, but evidence seems to point to multiple launch points outside Yemen. As to a moral reason for the attacks, why would the Houthis need one as an answer to the world? The two countries are at war and in war nations attack each other. The question becomes, could Yemen conduct such a sophisticated attack? That seems very doubtful, so once again we are back to Iran, the military backers of the Houthis.

Reports at first said the attack was conducted using swarms of drones and I wondered, do the Houthis really have swarms of drones capable of such an undetected attack?  I read a report that said that some cruise missiles were also used and that an intact circuit board from a failed missile had been found and that it could be traced to Iranian technology. If an intact cruise missile was found it should be obvious who built it, and I’m sure that if the story is true its origin is clear.  That story is reminiscent of an intact passport from one of the 9/11 hijackers found in the rubble of a fire that was hot enough to melt structural steel. 

The question before us then is what now. President Trump has said that he plans to intensify his campaign of sanctions against Iran. The Iranians look for ways around the economic chains and therefore become bolder and bolder as they are cornered and have no clear route of escape. What’s the first rule of negotiating; always leave your opponent a face saving way out so that both parties can think they gained something. If you are not negotiating, but making war, then infliction of damage until surrender becomes the goal.

Iran has shown in recent months that it is willing to risk the consequences of pushing back against U.S. sanctions in order to break out of the economic straitjacket in which it finds itself. If the Iranians really did this attack then they are obviously willing to risk a U.S .military attack. Perhaps they are willing to gamble that the Trump administration would not want a big war just before the 2020 presidential election. Perhaps this would be a perfect opportunity for the empire to remind the world once again that it is not to be trifled with.

Could the neocons in the Trump administration convince him that an attack of this magnitude requires a military response as a deterrent? Despite his bluster such as telling the Iranians “we are locked and loaded” he seems reluctant. I always cringe when I hear statements like that from armchair Washington warriors. Old men decide when young men are to go to war. The old men play their geopolitical power games but young men do the killing and the dying. The civilians, including the elderly, the women, and the children are just victims, just collateral damage with no say in the matter.

Bolton has been replaced with Robert C. O’Brien as Director of National Security. It’s too early to judge what Mr. O’Brien’s influence will be but his current position is Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs at the State Department. That is a grand title but it means that he helped the president when it was necessary to negotiate for the release of hostages. He is originally from Los Angeles and has a law degree from California Berkeley. He has extensive Middle East experience as a U.N. representative and has advised Republican office holders on Foreign Affairs, especially the Middle East. We wait and anticipate the words he whispers in the President’s ear.

Many people in American leadership urge the President of the United States to make war his top priority.  Speaking of coincidences though, the Saudis, with the full support of the United States, had not been able to defeat the Houthis and had, in fact, asked the Trump Administration to help negotiate a way out of their endless war. The administration admitted that the requested talks had already begun, so I guess the attacks were just in the nick of time.

There can be no doubt that one result of the attacks will be much higher oil prices for the United States and the world. One half of Saudi Arabia’s oil and gas production was disrupted and that’s a lot of oil. One half of Saudi production is about 5% of the entire world’s supply. I thought the United States was energy independent now. We are told quite often that with fracking and shale oil production technology we could survive on our own and that we are actually exporting oil and gas, so what’s the problem.

State run Saudi Aramco lost about 5.7 million barrels a day of output and some are calling it the worst disruption of oil supply in history. All the talk about energy independence and green energy goes away when people are left with a critical shortage. Life styles are disrupted, work is disrupted, and paychecks for people are disrupted but for some I suppose it’s good news. If you had the foresight to invest in oil futures, you might be happy right now. Aramco officials now say the disruption is estimated at weeks or even months to repair. I wonder if anyone has checked to see if tens of millions were invested in oil futures a few days before the attacks.

So the United States has a dilemma on its hands now. The question becomes even more in doubt with Bolton no longer around and with Mr. O’Brian being a rather unknown entity. There are people in Washington who know, however, and one of them is Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. He represents the State Department and is, therefore, responsible for U.S. diplomacy, but was quick to blame the Iranians. Likewise Senator Lindsay Graham recommended a U.S. attack on Iranian oil facilities.

So it seems that many are ready for war against a country serving as a proxy supplier to people defending themselves from attack and retaliating for that attack.

Finally, folks, who can say that American foreign policy with regard to the Middle East has been successful for the last 25 years. It appears to be an abject failure resulting in trillions of dollars of debt, millions of lives, millions of migrants, and destruction of nations and their infrastructure. I’m for trying something different, such as we come home and mind our business. Why can’t we do what’s best for the American people for once. Instead the President says he is just waiting for the Saudis to decide what should be done. Mr. President, are you putting America first or Saudi Arabia first?

At least that’s the way I see it.

Until next time folks,

This is Darrell Castle.

Thanks for listening.