Iran called the accusations part of a campaign of American disinformation and “warmongering.”

The explosions forced the crews of both vessels to evacuate and left at least one ablaze, and hours later the causes were still under investigation. Yet the backdrop of steeply rising threats between President Trump and Iranian leaders gave the stricken ships a grave significance even before the facts became clear.

By afternoon, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that American intelligence agencies had concluded Tehran was behind the disabling of both ships. Without providing specific evidence, he pointed to the weapons used, the expertise and resources required and the similarity to other recent attacks attributed to Iran.

“Taken as a whole, these unprovoked attacks present a clear threat to international peace and security,” he told a news conference in Washington.

Senior American officials had already blamed Iran for similar attacks last month against four tankers on the same waterway. Iranian officials, who denied any involvement in those attacks, also rejected assertions they were behind the events on Thursday and said Iran had been framed.

“Suspicious doesn’t begin to describe what likely transpired this morning,” Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, wrote on Twitter. Mr. Pompeo, firing back at his news conference, said Mr. Zarif “may think this is funny, but no one else in the world does.”

The most compelling evidence to support Mr. Pompeo’s claim is full-motion video footage taken by a Navy P-8 surveillance plane of an Islamic Revolutionary Guards patrol boat pulling up alongside the Kokuka Courageous, one of the stricken ships, a few hours after the initial explosion, and removing what American analysts believe was a limpet mine, two United States officials said after the secretary’s statement.

The patrol boat, with a crew of about a dozen aboard, removed the mine in broad daylight and zoomed away, blending in with other Revolutionary Guards boats in the area, according to the account by the American officials of what the video showed.

On Thursday night, United States Central Command issued a statement in which it said an Islamic Revolutionary Guard patrol boat had been “observed and recorded removing the unexploded mine” from the Kokuka Courageous.

The Kokuka Courageous was about 20 miles off the Iranian coast when it transmitted an emergency call for help after an initial explosion. When the crew surveyed the damage from the first explosion, they saw a second unexploded mine attached to the hull and evacuated the ship, according to the American officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive intelligence matter.

The confrontation also played out at the United Nations in a meeting of the Security Council, where the acting United States ambassador, Jonathan Cohen, told other members that Iran was behind the attacks. Iran’s United Nations mission issued a statement afterward denouncing the “inflammatory remarks” by the American representative, calling them part of “another Iranophobic campaign” of disinformation.

“The U.S. and its regional allies must stop warmongering and put an end to mischievous plots as well as false flag operations in the region,” the Iranian statement said.

Earlier Thursday, the United Nations secretary general, António Guterres, expressed “deep concern” that the new episode might lead to a military escalation.

[Read more about the narrow waterway that is the world’s most important oil route.]

Besides its importance as a petroleum highway, the Persian Gulf also divides bitter and heavily armed rivals, with Iran on one side and the American-backed Arab monarchies of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates on the other.

The two sides have fought for years through surrogate forces in neighboring countries, including Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Bahrain. Saudi and Emirati forces have been battling directly for more than four years to roll back a takeover of Yemen by a faction aligned with Iran.

Anxieties over the shared dependence on the vulnerable Persian Gulf shipping lanes have always been central to their animosities, and a commitment to guaranteeing the flow of oil through the same channels is behind the substantial American military presence in the region.

Iranian officials on Thursday suggested the new attacks might be the product of an elaborate conspiracy by their enemies, seemingly pointing to American allies like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates or Israel, which have long urged Washington to take a more muscular approach to Iran.

But many analysts said there was a growing consensus in the West that Iran had been behind last month’s attacks, which took place near the port of Fujairah in the United Arab Emirates. And they argued that Iran appeared to be seeking to demonstrate it could imperil the world’s oil markets, but without leaving the kind of fingerprints that could trigger American military retaliation.

“As long as there is significant ambiguity the attacks won’t produce a casus belli,” or cause for war, said Jack Watling, a researcher at the Royal United Services Institute in London. “But Iran is demonstrating its capabilities. It is saying, ‘We can impose a cost on our adversaries in this confrontation, and it will be high.’”

Crude oil prices rose more than 3 percent in response to the crippling of the two ships on Thursday, indirectly boosting Iran’s revenue as an oil producer.

The initial White House response on Thursday was measured. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, said Mr. Trump had been briefed and that the “U.S. government is providing assistance and will continue to assess the situation.”

It was only a few hours later that Mr. Pompeo publicly blamed Iran.

The escalation came against the backdrop of a visit to Iran by the prime minister of Japan, Shinzo Abe, who was hoping to de-escalate tensions between Tehran and Washington and avert any “accidental clashes.”

Michio Yube, top center, the director of Kokuka Sangyo, speaking to the news media in Tokyo on Thursday after one of the company’s ships was attacked near the Strait of Hormuz.CreditEugene Hoshiko/Associated Press 

The post In Gulf of Oman, Tankers Are Struck Again, Raising Fears of Wider Conflict first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

President Trump receiving a briefing on Monday from military leaders at the White House after a suspected chemical weapons attack that killed dozens of Syrians. Credit Tom Brenner/The New York Times

WASHINGTON — President Trump and his advisers on Tuesday weighed a more robust retaliatory strike against Syria than last year’s missile attack, reasoning that only an escalation of force would look credible and possibly serve as a deterrent against further use of chemical weapons on Syrian civilians.

A pair of Navy warships in the eastern Mediterranean Sea were capable of launching the same sort of missile barrage that Mr. Trump ordered against a Syrian air base a year ago in response to a chemical attack then that killed more than 80 civilians.

But White House and national security officials worried that an operation of the same scale, as punishment for another suspected and deadly attack that killed dozens over the weekend, would not be effective at curbing the Syrian military’s war effort.

Administration officials said they expected any new strike to be more expansive than last year’s, but the question was how much more. Possible options included hitting more than a single target and extending strikes beyond a single day.

But even so, Mr. Trump remained reluctant to deepen American involvement over a longer term.

Mr. Trump and his team enlisted support for action against the government of President Bashar al-Assad. American officials expressed confidence that they would have the backing of France, which has been vocal about the need for a strong response, as well as Britain, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, all of which called for Syria to be held accountable for the suspected chemical attack. It remained unclear, however, whether any of the allies would participate.

Mr. Trump canceled a trip to Peru and Colombia that was scheduled to start Friday to oversee the response to the Syria attack, but as of early evening, had made no comment about Syria on Twitter or in his public appearances on Tuesday. Instead, he left it to a guest, the visiting emir of Qatar, to express determination to stop atrocities in Syria.

“We see the suffering of the Syrian people,” Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani said with Mr. Trump in the Oval Office. “And me and the president, we see eye to eye that this matter has to stop immediately. We cannot tolerate with a war criminal, we cannot tolerate with someone who killed more than half a million of his own people.”

Mr. Trump spent part of the day huddled with John F. Kelly, his chief of staff, John R. Bolton, his new national security adviser, and other officials. But his spokeswoman declined to discuss the deliberations.

“As we’ve said, all options are on the table,” said Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, “but I’m not going to get ahead of anything the president may or may not do in response to what’s taken place in Syria.”

Heavily backed by Russian air support and Iranian ground forces, Syria is in a different league than adversaries in other places where the United States is at war. Unlike the Islamic State in various parts of the Middle East, the Taliban in Afghanistan or the Shabab in Somalia, the Syrian government has extensive air defense and missile systems capable of shooting down foreign planes.

Sending bombers and fighter jets, with American or French pilots, to strike Syrian airfields or other facilities is considered risky because it could deepen the conflict if a pilot was shot down. That is why the Pentagon is looking at the same sort of retaliation used last year when two Navy destroyers unleashed a fusillade of 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Al Shayrat airfield that was believed to have been used to launch chemical attacks.

But less than 24 hours after that strike, Syrian warplanes were again taking off from the damaged airfield, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a monitoring group. Beyond Al Shayrat base, Syria still had numerous others from which it could launch flights. While Mr. Trump’s advisers argued last year that the strike affected Mr. Assad’s calculations, in the end its limited nature ultimately did not thwart the Syrian government’s ability to launch chemical attacks.

“There’s a tension between the desire to do something bigger than last time and the president’s clear desire not to stay engaged in sustained operations,” said Michèle A. Flournoy, an under secretary of defense under President Barack Obama. “Conceivably, they could design a larger one-off strike or a series of smaller strikes.”

“But at the end of the day, it’s sustained pressure on Assad that’s going to change his calculation about whether to use chemical weapons,” Ms. Flournoy said.

David F. Gordon, policy planning director at the State Department under President George W. Bush, said Mr. Trump was almost certainly looking to punish Mr. Assad more severely while limiting American engagement.

“What they’re probably searching for is: What can we destroy that weakens this guy?” Mr. Gordon said. “He has to do more than he did last time, and I think he does want to disrupt their capabilities. But I think it’s basically still the one shot — it may be in two waves or something, but I don’t think there’s an ongoing response to this.”

Already, there were indications that Mr. Assad was moving key aircraft to a Russian base near Latakia, a port city on the Mediterranean Sea, and taking pains to secure important weapons systems.

The Pentagon does not have an aircraft carrier in the area at the moment, which focuses attention on the U.S.S. Donald Cook or the U.S.S. Porter, two Navy destroyers already in the Mediterranean. The Donald Cook departed Larnaca, Cyprus, on Monday after completing a scheduled port visit, Navy officials said.

The Donald Cook is one of four Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers that generally serve Europe and are part of a NATO rotation, officials said. The United States can use the Donald Cook or the Porter to launch multiple Tomahawk cruise missiles at sites in Syria similar to last year’s operation.

Since last year’s strikes, the United States Central Command has been updating lists of possible military and government targets in Syria, including aircraft hangars, ammunition depots and command headquarters. Defense officials said one possibility was to render certain Syrian airfields incapable of being used in the future to launch chemical attacks.

Last year’s strike destroyed a number of aircraft and their hangars, the Pentagon said at the time, but did not hinder the base’s ability to launch aircraft for long. The American missiles used in the attack, BGM-109 Tomahawks, have a range of around 1,000 miles and carry a warhead that weighs half a ton.

The Donald Cook and the Porter are likely loaded with roughly two dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles each. The U.S.S. New York, an amphibious landing ship and part of the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, is also nearby. The New York can launch transport helicopters and landing craft loaded with Marines, but sending in ground forces is highly unlikely, officials said.

In coming days, the U.S.S. Harry S. Truman, a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, is scheduled to head to the region. While part of a regularly scheduled deployment, the Truman will deploy to the Mediterranean with a complement of strike and reconnaissance aircraft and surface warships sailing alongside.

Whether allied forces would participate remained unclear. President Emmanuel Macron of France said Tuesday that the allies were still discussing a plan and would announce a decision “in the coming days.”

“We do not wish for any escalation in the region,” said Mr. Macron, who was hosting Mohammed bin Salman, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia. “But we simply wish that international law, and in particular international humanitarian law, be respected.”

Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi foreign minister, said that those behind the reported chemical attack in Syria must be “held accountable,” although he did not say whether Saudi Arabia would join any response. “We are discussing with our allies the steps to respond,” Mr. Jubeir told reporters in Paris.

Prime Minister Theresa May of Britain, who spoke by telephone with Mr. Trump on Tuesday, also stressed the responsibility of Mr. Assad’s government for the attack “if confirmed.” In a statement summarizing the leaders’ call, the British government said, “They agreed that the international community needed to respond to uphold the worldwide prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.”

In Washington, most lawmakers remained either supportive of military action or noncommittal, but some liberal Democrats objected. Leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus issued a statement calling on the administration to “redouble its efforts to engage our allies and enforce international prohibitions on chemical weapons diplomatically” rather than use force again.

Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, said Mr. Trump needed permission from Congress before action.

“He’s a president, not a king, and Congress needs to quit giving him a blank check to wage war against anyone, anywhere,” Mr. Kaine said. “If he strikes Syria without our approval, what will stop him from bombing North Korea or Iran?”

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/us/politics/trump-military-strike-syria.html

The post Trump Weighs More Robust Military Strike Against Syria first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.