The Middle East is set for another murderous scrap, one boosted by the usual speculation, fear and rage that accompanies the next provocation. Saturday's attack on the world's largest oil processing facility at Abqaiq in Saudi Arabia, which was responsible for a daily output of some 5.7 million barrels, had its desired effect. There was talk about a constriction in the energy market. The commentariat on oil prices got into a tizz with a price rise of 20 per cent in Benchmark Brent crude.
Speculators got busy, concerned that a critical point in the energy supply chain had been assaulted. 'Saturday's attack on a critical Saudi oil facility,' broods the Wall Street Journal, 'will almost certainly rock the world energy market in the short term, but it also carries disturbing long-term implications.'
For one, it was audacious, executed by drones supposedly controlled by Iran-backed Houthi rebels based in Yemen. But Riyadh is also examining another possibility: that the attack was instigated by another group from Iraq using cruise missiles. What concerns the security fraternity is that, whichever group was responsible, a non-state actor has been involved in targeting vulnerable assets in the global energy chain.
Immediately, geopolitical presumptions were being made. Those responsible for the attack could not have been operating on their own volition. Some puppet mastery was involved. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo refused to swallow Iranian denials regarding the attack, or accept Houthi claims.
The forced departure of US national security advisor John Bolton, an individual not averse to retaliatory strikes on Iranian targets, had left matters uncertain. Optimists were hoping that the change would lead to a waiver of sanctions for some buyers of Iranian crude. Prospects of a discussion with Iran's President Hassan Rouhani later this month were also floated.
In all that fuss, it was conveniently forgotten that Pompeo remains a bellicose hawk of some determination. He might have been well on cue managing Trump's inconsistent scripts, but he remains a devotee of pre-emptive action and retaliation. In his view, there is only one state responsible for the attacks. 'We call on all nations to publicly and unequivocally condemn Iran's attacks. The United States will work with our partners and allies to ensure that energy markets remain well supplied and Iran is held accountable for its aggression.'
In another tweet posted on Saturday, he accused Iran of being behind some 100 attacks on Saudi Arabia 'while Rouhani and [Iranian Foreign Minister Javad] Zarif pretend to engage in diplomacy'. He ruled out Yemen as a base for the assault. Iran had 'launched an unprecedented attack on the world's energy supply.'
"The Houthis have always been seen by Washington as play dough companions of Teheran, never genuine rebels."
Even in the absence of being briefed with evidence, the Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, US Representative Adam Schiff, was already adamant on the hidden hand: 'I think it's safe to say that the Houthis don't have the capability to do a strike like this without Iranian assistance.'
All of this has the hallmarks of danger. Previous US administrations have been cavalier with using stretched, and in some cases doctored, evidence, to justify military action. The region still labours with the evidentiary fantasies that drove the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, one filled with extravagant assessments on Saddam Hussein's capabilities regarding weapons of mass destruction.
The dangers of misreading, actual or unwitting, also extend to the cognitive failings of US foreign policy in the Middle East. The Houthis have always been seen by Washington as play dough companions of Teheran, never genuine rebels, set on asserting Shiite control indigenous to Yemen. Similar errors of misreading have been made in Afghanistan regarding the Taliban, and the Viet Cong in Vietnam: local factors are discounted in favour of external, geopolitical interference.
The condemnation of Iran for the attacks also has the effect of deflecting from the atrocities and war crimes being perpetrated on the state by the Saudi-led coalition. (The Houthi rebels have not been averse to their own bloodletting in this regard, albeit lacking equivalent arms and material.)
The campaign has been well supported by western armaments, a point made in leaked documents from the French Directorate of Military Intelligence in April this year. The documentation also revealed assistance supplied by the US, France and the UK in targeting, a damning point in a conflict marked by the destruction of schools, mosques, hospitals and critical infrastructure. Such arms have also been transferred, in breach of agreements with Washington, to a range of factions fighting in Yemen distinctly opposed to Western states, including Salafi militias and al-Qaeda linked groups.
The signals from the White House remain erratic. White House adviser Kellyanne Conway claimed that the attacks may not have helped; nor did they spell an end to a potential meeting between Trump and Rouhani at the UN General Assembly. The fear here is that Trump might yield to the jingoistic advice of such figures as Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who has openly suggested that the time has come 'to put on the table an attack on Iranian oil refineries'.
Dr Binoy Kampmark is a former Commonwealth Scholar who lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.
Main image: Stock photo of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (Credit: 3dotsad / Getty)