The U.S. wants to convince the world that Iran attacked tankers in the Gulf of Oman and so far the evidence seems pretty damning for Tehran. But experts say building a coalition to hold Iran responsible for the attacks may be tricky because some allies blame the Trump administration for the current tensions and are suspicious of its intentions towards Tehran.
Speaking to reporters outside the Pentagon on Friday, acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanhan said he was looking to “build international consensus” after the U.S. claimed that Iran had carried out attacks against two Japanese and Norwegian tankers in the Gulf of Oman.
America’s allies in Europe have so far sent mixed messages about who’s responsible for the attacks in the Gulf of Oman. German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas told reporters that the Centcom video is “not enough” evidence to hold Iran responsible while the British government backed the U.S. claims in a statement which said that “it is almost certain” that Iran’s military was behind the tanker attacks.
ADVERTISEMENT
"European allies have not been as forthcoming and eager to follow the U.S. lead,” said Ariane Tabatabai, a political scientist at the Rand Corporation. “That’s partially because of what they view as the administration's track record with Iran”—many of the president’s advisers have been advocating for years for regime change in Tehran—“but also because of just how murky this has been."
Making matters murkier: Yutaka Katada, president of the firm which owns the Kokuka Courageous tanker hit in the attack, called the U.S. account of a mine attack on the ship “false” and said crew members had instead seen “flying objects” shortly before the attack.
It’s one of several obstacles the Trump administration may find as it rolls out its case for Iran’s culpability.
“There are those who are skeptical because of the Iraq precedent, this administration’s less-than-confidence-inspiring track record, and the speed with which it reached its conclusion,” said Rob Malley, a former Obama administration official who now heads the International Crisis Group. “And then there are those who may be inclined to believe the administration but are nonetheless disinclined to back it” because they believe the Trump administration’s ratcheting-up of sanctions in the “maximum pressure” campaign kicked off an escalatory cycle.
That’s at least what some of the U.S. intelligence reporting suggests. As The Daily Beast reported, U.S. intelligence officials said that Iran’s threatening moves were Iran’s response to the Trump administration decision to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) a terrorist organization and the withdrawal of sanctions waivers for countries buying Iranian oil.
Last month, Washington sent B-52 bombers and tankers to the Persian Gulf in a show of force against Tehran after the Trump administration claimed there were new “threat streams” that called for the deployment. The move fed fears of a military conflict between the two countries. And for a time, Congress was in the dark on the intelligence. Sources briefed on the intelligence said the Trump administration blew the threat reports out of proportion and said there was no sign of an imminent threat to U.S. military forces in the region. Shortly afterwards, Shanahan claimed that the troop movements had “deterred attacks” against American forces in the region.
Afshon Ostovar, an Iran scholar at the Naval Postgraduate School, said that some allies may be wary of the consensus the Trump administration is trying to build because they fear it could become a pretext for war. “They’re not naive, understand Iran’s capabilities and past actions well, and can easily understand what Iran might be trying to achieve in these attacks,” said Ostovar. “But they also partly blame current U.S. policy, especially pulling out of the nuclear deal, for creating the present context and for limiting the options for dealing with Iran.”
In an attempt to show Iranian culpability for the tanker attacks, the Defense Department released a host of evidence late Thursday.
U.S. Central Command published a video of what it said was an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps fastboat pulling up to the starboard side of the MV Kokuka Courageous and removing an alleged unexploded limpet mine from the hull approximately nine hours after the crew had radioed a distress call. The crew reportedly abandoned ship after noticing the apparent munition on the side of the hull.
Images published by U.S. Central Command Thursday also showed two holes on the side of the Kokuka’s hull which officials say were caused by a “likely mine.”
Explosive ordnance disposal experts told The Daily Beast that the placement of the holes on the ship in the imagery was unusual.
“Where the limpet is placed is not correct. If you’re going to put a limpet on a ship, it’s going to go underwater. That’s where they go,” Brant deBoer, a former U.S. Navy bomb disposal officer, said. Limpet mines are generally designed for use underwater to flood a vessel, but the placement of holes well above the water line suggests that attackers were trying to damage the ship, not sink it.
That’s consistent with the tactics allegedly employed during an attack on Norwegian, Emirati, and Saudi tankers in May. A preliminary investigation carried out by the three governments concluded that the explosions “were designed to incapacitate the ships without sinking them or detonating their cargoes,” according to a statement. Emirati officials say that attackers placed limpet mines at or below the water line or engine compartment of the vessels in the Fujairah attack. Emirati officials have refrained from assigning responsibility for the May attacks but the U.S. accused Iran of carrying out those attacks, as well.
DeBoer said bomb disposal crews in most navies would generally approach an unfamiliar live limpet mine with a skeleton crew and look to blow a small explosive charge into the device and then pull it into the water from a comfortable distance in order to safely dispose of it.
By contrast, the video released by Central Command shows a boat filled with Iranian personnel speeding up to the alleged limpet, pulling it off by hand, and rushing away with the device. “That means that they’re very comfortable with the idea that this thing is not going to go off,” said deBoer, which could imply familiarity with the alleged munition.
Top lawmakers on Capitol Hill have asked for briefings from the Trump administration on the latest developments with Iran, including the alleged attack by Tehran on two petrochemical tankers near the Strait of Hormuz, according to three individuals with direct knowledge of those overtures.
While most members have left Washington for the weekend, staffers inside relevant committees are in conversations with the State Department and the Department of Defense on scheduling briefings on the latest intelligence, including what led Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Thursday to call out Iran.
“Iran is responsible for the attacks that occurred in the Gulf of Oman today,” Pompeo said during a press conference. “This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping, and the fact that no proxy group operating in the area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication.”
Lawmakers said they were anxious to get a read out of the administration's intelligence to avoid confusion about tensions between the U.S. and Iran.
Two people familiar with the matter said they expected Pompeo to conduct a briefing sometime next week, though the details of that briefing—and which members will attend—are still unclear
“I have no doubt that Iran is behind the attacks,” Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) said in a CNN interview Friday. “The question is how do we handle it? What do we do?... I don’t want us to plunge into a war, but, on the other hand, the Iranians have to understand that this is something that’s serious.”
