Casting about for a casus belli

Despite Trump and his Administration baldly asserting that Iran is behind the tanker attacks in the Straits of Hormuz this week, there remain far more open, unconfirmed, and even weird questions about attacks and their aftermath. To name just a few …

1. Why would the Iranians attack a Japanese tanker while hosting the Prime Minister of Japan, who was there on a peace mission?
2. Why does the crew of the Japanese tanker say that the ship was hit by flying objects, not mines?
3. If you’re sneaking up to a ship to remove a limpet mine you put there which didn’t go off for some reason, do you have all your crew crowd around while you’re removing the unexploded mine?
4. If those were the Iranians doing that, why did the UN Navy just let them do so and and then sail off without, apparently, tracking where they went?
5. How do the Iranians benefit from all of this?

That last one is key in this. Cui bono?, “To whom the benefit?” is an old Roman legal maxim. When seeking suspects, figure out who gains an advantage, who has a motivation.

Analyzing motivations is by no means foolproof, of course, as it assumes a certain level of rationality, enlightened self-interest, command and control within all the parties involved, and that you have sufficient facts on hand. On the other hand, just making assumptions based on biases toward an end you are seeking is even more of a mook’s game.

So how does Iran benefit by attacking these ships, at this time?

One semi-rational suggestion I’ve read about this (beyond vague “They’re crazy religious fanatics, go figure?”) is that by causing oil prices to surge, Iran’s restricted oil exports are worth more.  That seems a very high stakes way for a short term gain.

Another suggestion is that Iran is sending (while denying the attacks for international sensibilities) a veiled signal that it could cause significant economic damage, if it chose to, and if it is in fact attacked by the United States. The risk calculus there still seems dodgy, but the Iranians (among others) might not see it that way.

So, yes, these attacks certainly could be Iranian. That might even be the most likely answer. Or they could be by Iranian proxies, enough at arms length for plausible deniability.

Or, alternately, they could be Saudis or Emirate forces, looking to get the US to attack their regional enemy (and, hey, drive up oil prices, too!). For that matter, I have full faith in the Israelis being able to stage this, should they choose to see this as a way of taking down by proxy what they consider an existential enemy.

And that doesn’t even count the terrible possibility that it was actually perpetrated by US forces under a false flag.

Given US history, and our willingness to rush to war on mistaken or intentionally fabricated facts (the Maine, the Lusitania, the Gulf of Tonkin, the war in Iraq), and given the staggering cost in blood and money that war  incurs, we should always question the proof provided as a casus belli, and call for it to be of the highest transparency possible. We need convincing evidence, presented by convincing representatives.

In this case the scanty proof (mostly assertions) given us by a US Administration whose leaders have made it clear they are itching for a reason to take down the Iranians, and whose penchant for dishonesty on matters small and great is staggering, is as yet unconvincing.

Do you want to know more?

• • Gulf of Oman: Trump’s lies have undercut his credibility on Iran.
  • Stonekettle Station: Remember The Maine
  • Pompeo Says Intelligence Points to Iran in Tanker Attack in Gulf of Oman – The New York Times
  • Gulf of Oman tanker attacks: Trump dismisses Iran denials – BBC News
  • Oil tanker captain disputes part of US account of attack | TheHill
  • President Trump has made 10,796 false or misleading claims over 869 days – The Washington Post
  • All False statements involving Donald Trump | PolitiFact