Bolton has referred, in particular, to “marine mines” as the cause of open gaps in four freighters off the Emirati coasts of Fujairah
The alleged sabotage of four crude oil vessels in the Gulf of Oman continues to bring tail. National Security presidential adviser John Bolton has blamed Iran for the May 12 incident, which helped to raise tension between Iranians and Americans. “There is no doubt in anyone’s mind in Washington about who is responsible for it,” the White House’s chief hawk told reporters from the United Arab Emirates. “Who else could do it? Someone from Nepal?”
Bolton has referred, in particular, to “marine mines” as the cause of the open gaps in four freighters off the Emirati coasts of Fuyaira. A cause similar to the one indicated by the insurer of the affected Norwegian ship, after his expert opinion saw “similarities” between the shrapnel found in the hull of the ship and the one recovered after drone attacks by the Huerzi militias – close to Iran -, who control the Yemeni government.
And yet, the United States has fallen short when it comes to presenting evidence to support its accusation. Only American officials, on condition of anonymity, have assured media like CNN that they have images of Iranian commercial vessels in the waters of the Persian Gulf, which, they believe, have been modified to be able to fire some type of ammunition like missiles. Last Friday, US Vice Admiral Michael Gilday called Iran guilty “with a high degree of security.”
Washington has on several occasions equated the Houthis with the Revolutionary Guards, the ideological wing of the Iranian army that it has recently designated as “terrorist.”
A few hours after Bolton expressed himself in these terms, when he was about to address the incident with Persian Gulf allies, the Iranians replied. “Bringing this ridiculous complaint in a meeting with those who have a long history of Iranian politics is not strange,” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi said Wednesday.
The Iranian government of Hasan Rohani has responded to Bolton and the US administration with negative and even angry criticism of what they suggest is a “plot” to foment an armed conflict. The swords remain high, and the decision of President Donald Trump, last Friday, to send 1,500 troops to the region to “reinforce the defenses” against Iran has had its response in the most recalcitrant sectors of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
“America … send two warships to the region, if they commit a stupidity, even the smallest, we will send these ships to the bottom of the sea, along with their crew, using two missiles or two new secret weapons,” the week said. After General Morteza Gorbani, an adviser to the military apparatus. This type of bellicose diatribes, of intermediate positions of the Iranian nomenclature, contrasts with the velvety messages of the dome. The centrist Rohani has suggested the possibility of negotiating this Wednesday.
“When they lift the unjust sanctions, comply with their commitments [with the nuclear agreement] and return to the negotiating table, which they left behind, the door is not closed.” It was his reply to the step taken by Trump a day earlier when, true to his characteristic negotiating style, he said that “I really think that Iran would like to make a deal, I think it would be very intelligent on their part and I think it is possible that it will happen”.
Although leading figures from both Iran and the US have publicly expressed their disinterest in a train crash, which analysts believe would be catastrophic. And although countries such as Oman and Japan have undertaken mediation efforts to bring positions closer – Trump applauded the Japanese on Monday – the tension continues to skyrocket. The main problem, apart from the influence of people favorable to a war like Bolton, is the lack of a starting point to negotiate.
Last November, the Secretary of State of the United States, Mike Pompeo, put 12 demands on the table as a previous step to normalize bilateral relations. These included the withdrawal of Iran from countries where it influences against US interests, the refusal to develop ballistic missiles or a permanent commitment not to manufacture nuclear weapons. In the last week, Trump said that “I just want you not to have a nuclear weapon.”
A non-existent possibility, as the Iranian Foreign Minister assured today, appealing to a religious edict of the Iranian Supreme Leader against nuclear weapons. Paradoxically, the 2015 nuclear agreement signed by his predecessor Barack Obama, from which the United States withdrew last year, guaranteed the fulfillment of Trump’s last wish. Extra reason for Iran to question what are the