Monday, June 17, 2019

 

Japan Questions U.S. Claim on Tanker Attack


Japan's Kyodo News is reporting that the Japanese government is casting doubt on U.S. claims that Iran was behind an attack last Thursday on the Kokuka Courageous, a Japanese-owned ship, near the Straits of Hormuz. I could not find the story on the Kyodo site but UPI and Japan Today are both running it.

UPI reports:
Japan is asking for more evidence from the United States Iran was responsible for attacks against two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman ...
The request for proof comes after U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Tehran is responsible for the attacks that forced the crew of the ships to be rescued and their cargoes unloaded.
The statements from Pompeo are "not convincing," a Japanese government source said Sunday, according to Kyodo News.
Japan Today reports:
A source close to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said, "These are not definite proof that it's Iran."
"Even if it's the United States that makes the assertion, we cannot simply say we believe it," he said.
If having expertise sophisticated enough to conduct the attack could be a reason to conclude that the attacker was Iran, "That would apply to the United States and Israel as well," said a source at the Foreign Ministry.
Curiously, UPI omitted the reference to the U.S. and Israel as having the capability to carry about the attack. Moreover, at this time it appears that UPI is the only American outlet to carry the story about high-level Japanese doubts.

Meanwhile, concerning the Norwegian-owned tanker Front Altair, Norway Today notes: "No country has supported the allegations of the Trump administration, except the British government." The U.S.-based News from Norway cites "a senior researcher at the Norwegian Institute of Foreign Affairs" writing: "[Kjetil] Selvik also points, however, to Iran's arch-enemy, Saudi Arabia, which is closedly [sic] allied with Trump."

I've seen the U.S. government's supposed video evidence of Iranian involvement in the attacks. It appears to be drone footage. To call it inconclusive would be an understatement.

Even a stopped clock is correct twice-a-day, it is said. IMO, Ben Garrison epitomizes this adage—he misses the mark more often than not but when you're right, you're right. And Garrison's cartoon below is pretty close to the mark. However, Garrison features an atomic symbol on a mullah's head dress and he writes: "They [Iran] continue to work on nuclear weapons. Forget about nuclear power—they have plenty of oil for their electricity."

Garrison apparently doesn't know, believe, or care that last week the IAEA issued ("derestricted") a report indicating that Iran was still in compliance with the flawed JCPOA—meaning it is not now (if, indeed, it ever was) developing nuclear weapons—even though the U.S. has walked away from the agreement. Meanwhile, Israel, which "is not a party to any of the major treaties governing WMD nonproliferation, including the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), and the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC)", has 80-90 undeclared nuclear warheads, according to the SIPRI Yearbook 2019.

Garrison also apparently doesn't understand that oil and gas are Iran's major export commodities, i.e. the key source of foreign revenues used to buy goods and services Iran does not produce domestically. It makes sense that Iran, like other oil export dependent countries, would a consider a nuclear powered electricity generating capacity if, on balance, it increased net export revenues.

The U.S. developed its nuclear power industry despite having an abundant supply of coal for electrical generation. Personally, I think nuclear fission is a Pandora's box that should never have been opened but I can understand the short-sighted appeal of nuclear power generation even if it has never lived up to its promise in terms of costs, non-proliferation, and safety.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,


Comments: Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?