Here.
Some complete nonsense here coming out of the US and Saudi Arabia.
In one of the most dramatic acts in the four-year war between the rebels and the Saudi-led coalition, the Houthis claimed responsibility for attacks on Saudi Arabia’s oil industry on 14 September.
The attacks on Saudi Aramco’s plants in Abqaiq and Khurais, some of the kingdom’s biggest, caused raging fires and significant damage that halved the crude output of the world’s top oil exporter by shutting down 5.7 million barrels per day of production.
However, Saudi, US, and European officials have rejected the claim, saying the Houthis have neither the weapons nor the skills to carry out such sophisticated strikes.
According to the WSJ, in the days following the attacks, an internal Houthi rift expanded between those who wanted to distance themselves from Iran, whom Western powers say was behind the strikes, and those who wanted to strengthen ties with Tehran.
Some Houthi leaders privately disavowed the group’s claim of responsibility for the attacks, according to two Saudi officials who spoke to the WSJ and asked not to be identified.
Houthi officials also told foreign diplomats that Iran was preparing a follow-on attack, said one of the officials and other people familiar with the evolving plans.
Official Houthi spokesmen have rejected any suggestions that they disavowed their initial claim or warned Riyadh about future strikes by Iran, the WSJ said.
Iran says it is not arming the Houthis, who deny being puppets of Tehran and say they are fighting against a corrupt system.
The group did not immediately respond on Friday to requests from the WSJ for comment.
First of all, it’s staggering that this publication Middle East Eye publication is even reporting this garbage. This publication is known to be anti-Saudi, anti-UAE, pro-Qatar and pro-Muslim Brotherhood. The UAE and Saudi Arabia both absolutely hate the MB, not for doctrinal reasons necessarily but more for mundane political ones.
The MB, the Saudis, and the UAE are all hardline Islamists and there’s not much light between their positions. But the MB wants to seize power in Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The Saudis and the UAE hate Iran but so does MEE, so that’s not a motive. Qatar has good relations with Iran, so that part doesn’t make sense.
But I am sure that the Muslim Brotherhood absolutely despises the Shia, as the MB are hardline Arab Sunnis from Arabia, the Levant, Mesopotamia, and Egypt
So it’s possible that this being a MB publication is why they are printing this outrageous anti-Iran nonsense – because they hate Iran as much as the Saudis and UAE do.
You want to know where all those cray ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc. Islamist rebels in Syria came from? They all came out of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. Incidentally, the genesis of Al Qaeda occurred in the 1980’s when MB preachers and teachers came from Syria and Egypt to work in Saudi Arabia. Many worked in schools. Their ideology mixed with the already toxic but relatively quietist Wahhabism of the Kingdom, and the result was explosive – Al Qaeda.
The Syrian MB was behind the rebellion in Hama in 1983 that was put down viciously by Bashar Assad’s father, Hafez. The US had no problems with this crackdown at the time as, we were not anti-Syria yet.
The crackdown lasted a month or more, levelled an entire city, and killed 30,000 people, mostly civilians and MB fighters. The fighting went underground into tunnels and sewers, and it got absolutely brutal. There were reports of the state resorting to mass executions and even the use of poison gas.
That may well be true – Hafez Assad was one brutal SOB, and he would definitely resort to poison gas. On the contrary, Bashar Assad, to my knowledge, has never used poison gas a single time in this war. All of the “Assad chemical attacks” were false flag attacks by the rebels.
Bashar is not a very nice guy, and he has been utterly vicious in how he fought this war, but he doesn’t use chemical weapons. He has other ways of killing people, mostly by arrest, torture and execution in military prisons. Chemical weapons are just not his style.
Anyway let’s break this garbage down here.
However, Saudi, US, and European officials have rejected the claim, saying the Houthis have neither the weapons nor the skills to carry out such sophisticated strikes.
Background. The European countries are the three American stooges called UK, France, and Germany.
- Simple fact. All of these US vassals are lying their fool’s heads off. This is disinformation straight from the CIA. It’s hard to believe that the UK, France, and Germany fell in with this, or maybe not.
- The UK is now ruled by the Tories who follow the US Republicans on foreign policy, so no surprises there.
- France has a government led by Macron, a hardcore neoliberal Zionist who was actually installed by the Rothschild Jewish billionaires and world-controllers in the UK. He’s made France much more pro-Israel and pro-US. He’s not even on the Left – he’s more of a Centrist, and he is to the right of most European Social Democratic parties who themselves are already cucked by neoliberalism to the hilt. Macron’s cucked even worse than they are.
- Germany is probably the most Jewish-cucked country on Earth, maybe even worse than our benighted land. Merkel is not on the Left. She’s not a Social Democrat. She is a Christian Democrat, and the CD’s have never been progressive anywhere. In Latin America, they have been either fascists (the AD in Venezuela) or “let’s split the difference with the fascists and give them half of what they want” (Duarte in El Salvador in the mid -80’s) types. In Europe they have been the most conservative ruling parties on the Continent, particularly in terms of economics.
However, Saudi, US, and European officials have rejected the claim, saying the Houthis have neither the weapons nor the skills to carry out such sophisticated strikes.
About the idea that the Houthis had neither the weaponry nor sophistication to carry out the attack – that’s not true! The operation was carried out via 10 drones, not 18 drones and 7 cruise missiles as the CIA is lying. The Houthis’ drones have already proven to be within range of those refineries.
How did the Houthis pull this off? I read journalists who are very close to the ruling elites in Iran, especially the IRGC and Iranian intelligence. Their reports on Iran can be reliably taken as the truth about Iran’s beliefs, behaviors, and objectives.
Via these posts, I can tell you how they did it:
How about if I told you that all Houthi weapons are developed from Iranian prototypes and then modified somewhat? How about if I told you that Hezbollah – master engineers, experts and rockets, missiles, and drones, help the Houthis build these weapons?
How about if I told you that Iran ramped up its support to the Houthis four months ago and poured a lot of resources into planning this attack with the Houthis? How about if I told you that at the same time, Iran dramatically ramped up its technology transfer to the Houthis, resulting in a shocking improvement of Houthi weaponry in a very short time?
Now does it make sense?
According to the WSJ, in the days following the attacks, an internal Houthi rift expanded between those who wanted to distance themselves from Iran, whom Western powers say was behind the strikes, and those who wanted to strengthen ties with Tehran.
Some Houthi leaders privately disavowed the group’s claim of responsibility for the attacks, according to two Saudi officials who spoke to the WSJ and asked not to be identified.
Houthi officials also told foreign diplomats that Iran was preparing a follow-on attack, said one of the officials and other people familiar with the evolving plans.
First, the Wall Street Journal is as kosher as a news organ gets. It’s has close to New York Times-level of Jews on its staff. The ownership used to be Jewish, and a very large number of the editors and writers are Jews. And they’re all conservative Republican Israel-firster Jews too.
Look, there was no rift between the Houthis and Iran. The Iranian sources above reiterated that the attacks were fired by the Houthis from Yemen but said that Iran had helped plan the attack over a period of months. They also said that not only were the Houthis sending their own obvious message to the Saudis, but the Iranians were too. Iran’s message in this attack was clear: There will be no peace in the region until the sanctions on Iran are lifted.
There are no pro-Iran and anti-Iran factions among the Houthis. Originally they were not even closely tied to Iran, but no one else would support them, so they turned to Iran.
Some Houthi leaders privately disavowed the group’s claim of responsibility for the attacks, according to two Saudi officials who spoke to the WSJ and asked not to be identified.
These mysterious Saudi officials are simply the Saudi intelligence agency, which planted this fake story – this disinformation – in the media. Notice how all these “officials”, “diplomats”, “sources within X country’s intelligence”, “administration officials”, etc. are always anonymous?
Any time you see BS sources like that combined with an unlikely story that smells like it was made up you are dealing with disinformation that is being planted in the media by one or more intelligence agencies.
If Iran really did this attack, my Iranian sources above would have heard about it by now and written about it. After all, these journalists affirmed the first tanker attacks, and so did internal IRGC organs.
But the information from the Iranian Deep State is that while indeed the Houthis did conduct this attack from Yemen with their own equipment (albeit made with Iranian models), Iran was absolutely involved in the detailed, months-long planning and preparation for the attack.
Houthi officials also told foreign diplomats that Iran was preparing a follow-on attack, said one of the officials and other people familiar with the evolving plans.
This is some dangerous nonsense. This is also disinformation planted by an intelligence agency, probably the CIA.
The diplomats are anonymous, obviously. They have to be. Most US diplomats are more or less spies and employees of the CIA anyway. In any US Embassy in any hot part of the world, ~50% of the embassy employees are actually connected to the CIA in one way or another. Of course they have their fake cover jobs at the embassy to cover up their spying.
An earlier version of this CIA tall tale said that Iran was planning a second attack, and they planned to blame it on the Houthis. Well, Iran did not do the first one, so how is it going to do a second one? It can’t. This story only makes sense if you buy the “Iran shot the flying weapons from Iran” CIA lie. But that didn’t happen. It’s just disinfo BS. So if the first part of this story was a lie, clearly the second part is a lie also.
Now the part about Iran’s plans to do the attack and then blame it on the Houthis. In my lifetime I have never encountered a state that conducts its attacks from its own soil and then has allied guerillas in another country claim the attack. Guerrillas don’t claim attacks that they don’t do.
Those wicked Iranians are going to do another attack from Iran and then get the Houthis to idiotically take the blame again! How dastardly! Of course the Houthis are starting to rebel against this Wicked Witch of the West level of evil! Oh, poor Houthis!
This is nonsense. States don’t order guerrillas do claim attacks that they didn’t do so the state can do the attack and then blame it on the guerrilla. Sure, it’s plausible, but I have never heard of a single case in my life.
The underlying message of this latest CIA lie is ominous. If there’s another attack, obviously the Houthis are going to do it. Sure, Iran might help them, but it will be launched from Yemen with Houthi weaponry, not from Iran with Iranian weaponry.
But look at how the story sets up the future. The message from the US and the Saudis is telling Iran that any future Houthi attacks similar in scale and targeting are going to be blamed on Iran no matter who does it.
So if the Houthis attack another oil refinery, the US and Saudi Arabia will accuse Iran of a second attack. The message? Any future large-scale Houthi attack on the Saudis will seriously endanger Iran, as it will be blamed on Iran no matter who did it, and Iran may well be attacked on the basis of this attack.
The logical move for the Houthis? Don’t do anymore large scale attacks on the Saudis. Their Iranian patron will be blamed and may well be attacked on the basis of Houthi attack.
The logical move for Iran? Tell the Houthis to not do any more large scale attacks on the Saudis. The next attack will be blamed on Iran and Iran may well get attacked. Iran doesn’t want to get attacked.
In other words, the Houthis and Iran are being set up ahead of time for any future attacks. Get it?
See how sneaky these American and Saudi rats are?
Official Houthi spokesmen have rejected any suggestions that they disavowed their initial claim or warned Riyadh about future strikes by Iran, the WSJ said.
This is laughable. Why on Earth would the Houthis contact their deadly enemy, Saudi Arabia, and warn them that the Houthis’ ally, Iran, was going to attack the Saudis? So in war you typically contact the enemy to warn them that one of your allies is going to attack them, right? When has that ever happened? It’s insane right out of the dugout.
Iran says it is not arming the Houthis, who deny being puppets of Tehran and say they are fighting against a corrupt system.
Well, Iran does arm the Houthis, but not many arms get in. I discussed this in a previous post. The seas are so well patrolled that the Iranians cannot get much weaponry in there. Instead Iran can give them Iranian technology and Iranian expertise in planning attacks because that doesn’t have to be smuggled in. The IRGC is already in Yemen advising the Houthis. They’re the ones who give the Houthis Iranian tech and help the Houthis plan attacks.
The part about the Houthis being Iranian puppets shows that this is a hit piece coming from the Iran-haters.
The group did not immediately respond on Friday to requests from the WSJ for comment.
And why respond to some outrageous bullshit lie? When you respond to this sort of thing, you give the lie and the liars publicity and in defending yourself, your opponent just twists your words around so you end up digging yourself even deeper in the hole you are in. It’s like protesting that you don’t beat your wife or molest children. The denial sounds suspicious because if you were innocent, why would anyone ever accuse you of such a thing in the first place?