Skip to main content

US to send 3,000 troops to Saudi Arabia as it withdraws from Syria

US to send 3,000 troops to Saudi Arabia as it withdraws from SyriaThe United States is to send an additional 3,000 troops to Saudi Arabia “to assure and enhance” the country’s security in the wake of the Aramco oil attacks, the Pentagon announced on Friday.  Mark Esper, the defence secretary, said the US was sending two more Patriot missile batteries, one THAAD ballistic missile interception system, two fighter squadrons and one air expeditionary wing. It came as Iran claimed yesterday that one of its oil tankers had been struck with missiles off the coast of Saudi Arabia in an incident shrouded in mystery.  The new deployment means that, since May, the US has sent an additional 14,000 members of the armed forces into the region.  "Secretary Esper informed Saudi Crown Prince and Minister of Defense Muhammad bin Salman this morning of the additional troop deployment to assure and enhance the defense of Saudi Arabia," the Pentagon said. “As we have stated, the United States does not seek conflict with the Iranian regime, but we will retain a robust military capability in the region that is ready to respond to any crisis and will defend US forces and interest in the region.” The announcement came just days after Mr Trump declared all US troops would be pulled out of Syria, complaining about "ridiculous endless wars". Mr Trump had campaigned on a promise to get US servicemen out of the Middle East, putting America First, and the decision is unlikely to go down well with his base. Iranian state television said the explosion damaged two storerooms aboard the unnamed oil tanker  Credit: twitter Iranian media claimed its vessel was hit on Friday morning about 60 miles from the Saudi port of Jeddah, causing it to leak oil into the Red Sea. The National Iranian Tanker Company (NITC) said the ship was damaged but stable and denied reports it had been set ablaze. Tensions have been high since the Spring after an Iranian tanker suspected of carrying crude to Syria in violation of EU sanctions was seized off Gibraltar. In retaliation, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard impounded British-flagged tanker Stena Impero. Then last month Saudi’s oil fields were hit by a large-scale missile and drone attack it blamed on Tehran, which saw production plummet and oil prices soar. Iran's foreign ministry claimed the vessel, which was first named as Sinopa before it was identified as the Sabiti, had been "targeted twice" but did not provide further details.  On Friday morning, an unnamed source told Iran media the vessel was struck by missiles "probably" originating from Saudi Arabia, but Iran’s national oil company later denied the claim.  Pictures released on Iranian media later showed no discernible damage and no evidence of any fire. TankerTrackers, which monitors oil exports, told the Telegraph there was no independent evidence to suggest the vessel had been hit.  Iranian tanker attack “Had she been struck, they wouldn't be sailing back as fast as they are sailing right now. She's moving at 10 knots an hour," they said. “(Iran is) fishing for higher prices, trying to remind the world that geopolitical risk is its way of controlling the oil market." Oil prices surged two per cent on the news. Publicly available ship tracking records show both ships are currently in the Red Sea. The Sinopa turned its transmitter on earlier this week for the first time in more than 50 days. The Sabiti, meanwhile, turned its tracker on early Friday after nearly 60 days of no transmissions. It is common for Iranian tankers to turn off automatic identification systems (AIS) to avoid detection - often to evade international sanctions or harassment from Saudi Arabia. TankerTrackers said this suggested the Sabiti, laden with one million barrels of oil may have been heading for Syria. However, it declared the Gulf as its destination. Thina Margrethe Saltvedt, an analyst at Nordea Markets, said it was not the particulars of the latest incident that were worrying traders but the fear of worse to come. "The risk premium is rising... not because the tanker per se contains enough oil to squeeze the market,” she said. “But the risk that this incident will be retaliated or more attacks would come either in Iran, Saudi Arabia or Iraq."




from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://ift.tt/2B3VZn4

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

REPORT: Furious Spike Lee Paces Aisle, Turns Back To Stage...

REPORT: Furious Spike Lee Paces Aisle, Turns Back To Stage... (Top headline, 5th story, link ) Related stories: REVIEW: Hostless Show Starts With Rock & Rolls Off Rails... Actor knocks borders, walls during speech in Spanish... Stage designed to look like Trump hair? 'GREEN BOOK' OVERCOMES BACKLASH, NABS BEST PICTURE... Top Critics Fume... LIST: WINNERS... Advertise here from Drudge Report Feed https://ift.tt/2SUpIKy

Tiny Love Stories: ‘Who Was I to Deprive Him of Joy?’

By Unknown Author from NYT Style https://ift.tt/2UV7YAG

The Ugly History of Dual-Loyalty Charges

When Representative Ilhan Omar recently complained about “the political influence in this country that says it is okay to push for allegiance to a foreign country,” many noted accurately that she had deployed a trope—dual loyalty—that had been used against Jews for years. But this accusation has a broader history in the United States, having been used against several religious minorities—including Muslims like Omar. Indeed, many battles over religious freedom have revolved around dual-loyalty claims. [ Read: Ilhan Omar just made it harder to have a nuanced debate about Israel ] In the 19th century, many attacks on Catholics stressed that these immigrants were pawns of a foreign power. In the 1830s, Samuel Morse—then a prominent painter and later the inventor of the telegraph—urged Americans to build “walls” and “gates” to keep out Catholic immigrants, who would always be loyal to Rome. Because these Catholic immigrants were decrepit —“halt, and blind, and naked”—they were easy to co...