The Daily - Who Really Attacked Saudi Arabia?

Episode Date: September 17, 2019

President Trump is saying that Iran appears to be responsible for the weekend attacks on oil facilities in Saudi Arabia. We look at where things are likely to go from here. Guest: David E. Sanger, a national security correspondent for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: President Trump said that the United States was prepared for war if necessary, but that he would “like to avoid” a military conflict with Iran.Mr. Trump’s response to the attacks offered insight into his deference to the Saudi royal family.

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Bavaro. This is The Daily. Today, President Trump is now saying that Iran appears to be responsible for the weekend attacks on Saudi Arabia's oil facilities. David Sanger on where things are likely to go from here. It's Tuesday, September 17th. David, describe the scene in Saudi Arabia on Saturday. Well, Michael, we're all still trying to piece it together.

in Saudi Arabia on Saturday. Well, Michael, we're all still trying to piece it together. But what we do know is that at about 3.30 in the morning on Saturday morning in Saudi Arabia, there were a series of explosions at a number of refinery facilities. Allah tal qidar. Qidash. Qidash. refinery facilities. And of course it was, you know, dark. No one exactly knew what was happening.

The fires were burning. It wasn't clear where these came from. And it wasn't until the sun rose that they saw a really remarkably extensive amount of damage. And what they discovered was that a number of their big oil fields were burning. And when you look at the satellite photographs, you see classic oil field kind of operations, big tanks, lots of pipes, and obviously lots of facilities that, if hit by a weapon, can burn. And that's exactly what happened. This was bigger than anything we had ever seen done to oil fields in Saudi Arabia at any time in history. And David, help us understand the significance

of hitting oil fields in Saudi Arabia. What's the impact of that? Well, Saudi Arabia obviously is among the world's biggest oil producers. These facilities account, Michael, for about 6% of the oil that's pumped around the world every day. Wow. The Saudis themselves produce roughly 10 million barrels a day. These facilities are capable of doing somewhere between 5 and 8 million of that. So this is a significant amount for world production, but it's a huge amount for the Saudi production.

Right. So if someone is interested in striking Saudi Arabia and striking the global economy, this is a very good target. It's the best target you could find. And what is the original understanding of what has happened and who did it? Well, before there was understanding, there was a claim of responsibility. The Houthis, who are engaged in a pretty desperate war with the Saudis in Yemen, immediately claim credit for this. We promised the Saudi regime

that our coming operations will only grow wider and will be more painful than before so long as their aggression and blockade continues. They said that they sent 10 drones into Saudi Arabia and that those were responsible for the hit. So as the initial reports came out on Saturday... The Houthi movement from neighboring Yemen has taken credit for the attacks. The Saudi government has been backing the Yemeni government's fight against some rebels. That seemed a perfectly credible explanation until you dug into the facts a little more. Then a few things just didn't add up.

Then a few things just didn't add up. The first thing is that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo turned out a statement on Saturday evening East Coast time. Meanwhile, America's top diplomat putting the blame squarely on Iran. The Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tweeting this, quote, Tehran is behind nearly 100 attacks on Saudi Arabia. Charging that the Iranians had been responsible for this. Iran has now launched an unprecedented attack on the world's energy supply. He did not provide evidence, but he said this didn't come from the Houthis,

it didn't come from Yemen, and it was an Iranian operation. One might be a little bit skeptical of that, but then we saw that there were 17 different strike points, and that became evident from some satellite photographs. Those satellite photographs showed 17 separate strikes that didn't quite seem to add up with 10 drones. The second thing is that these strikes were deep inside Saudi Arabia, and it would have required a flight of 500 miles or so for drones to be able to get there. And that seems well beyond the range of what we've seen the Houthis be able to do

before. And then as we looked more and more at these satellite photographs, it seemed clear that these were precision strikes. In fact, there was a hole in the domes of some of the storage facilities that were each in precisely the same place. And they were neatly bored little holes that seemed to suggest a missile strike, not a drone that just was carrying some explosives. So the initial story just didn't seem to match with what we were looking at in the photographs. And then what happens? Well, then the president took to Twitter

and he said on Sunday that, well, I'll read it to you. Saudi Arabia oil supply was attacked. There's reason to believe we know the culprit, are locked and loaded depending on verification, but are waiting to hear from the kingdom as to who they believe was the cause of this attack and under what terms we would proceed.

Kingdom is a reference to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The kingdom of Saudi Arabia. So here we have the president of the United States in charge of the world's largest and most powerful intelligence and military forces saying that he is waiting for the Saudis to tell him who they believe triggered this attack and to tell him what terms they would proceed on. Well, it sounds like they're

discussing some kind of joint response, but the United States for the past 200 plus years decides on its own whether or not it is going to come to the defense of an ally, conduct a military strike, or any other kind of response. It's somewhat remarkable to hear that they're waiting for instructions from an ally, which is what the president's tweet sounded like he was saying. And David, it's not just an ally, right? It's Saudi Arabia. And we're coming up on the one-year anniversary of Jamal Khashoggi's death, which there's a significant amount of evidence

that Mohammed bin Salman, the leader of Saudi Arabia, ordered. So it also seems somewhat extraordinary for the U.S. to defer to Saudi Arabia given that track record. That's right. The administration had been under tremendous pressure after the murder to identify MBS, as he's called, as somebody who was involved. But the administration ignored it all. And I'm not going to tell a country that's spending hundreds of billions of dollars

and has helped me do one thing very importantly, keep oil prices down so that they're not going to $100 and $150 a barrel. Right now, we have oil prices in great shape. I'm not going to destroy the world economy and I'm not going to destroy the economy for our country by being foolish with Saudi Arabia. So I think this statement... Wait a minute... So in some ways this is a big challenge to MBS but it's also something of a potential political gift to the administration because they can make the case to Congress and others that while Saudi Arabia is no perfect government or society, that the Iranians are in fact more evil actors in the region. And that's essentially the argument they've been making in the past 48 hours. So this attack would potentially have the impact of drawing the U.S. and Saudi Arabia

closer and giving the Trump administration a rationale for being closer to Mohammed bin Salman's Saudi Arabia. That's right. But there's also the concern inside the Pentagon that you not was that Bolton would lead the United States ultimately into a conflict with Iran. Now, with Bolton gone, a series of unpredicted events may in fact push the U.S. and Saudi Arabia there or push the United States to back up the Saudis if the Saudis strike Iran. So just to review, Pompeo has said it's Iran. The president has said we're locked and loaded, but going to let our ally Saudi Arabia lead the way in determining who it is. The Houthis

are claiming credit. But why would the Houthis claim to have done this, carried out this audacious, sophisticated attack if they hadn't? Well, it's a great question. I'm a bit confounded myself. The Houthis, of course, are backed by the Iranians. So it's conceivable the Iranians asked them to do it. It's conceivable that they just thought that by taking credit for it, they would look more powerful than they really are. And maybe in some way they were involved. But the most important element of this is that the Saudis came out on Monday. The Saudis specifically are pointing their finger at Iran, with whom, of course,

they're involved in this proxy war. And declared that their examination of the evidence was that this attack was launched by Iran. Specifically right now, however, while saying that these were Iranian weapon systems, they are saying they are still investigating precisely where those weapons were fired from. They have, however, ruled out Yemen as being that base. They provided no evidence, and that evidence may not exist. Because despite what you see in the movies,

we don't have all-seeing eyes in the sky on all corners of the world at all times. We'll be right back. We'll be right back. David, if it turns out that this was Iran, why would Iran want to attack Saudi Arabia's oil facilities? What's the point of this kind of attack? Well, one reason, Michael, is that the Iranians, of course, have been under sanction for more than a year now since the president left the Iranian nuclear agreement. So the Iranians may well want to send a message that says, you want to stop our oil shipments? Well, we can stop yours. And the message they're sending by having such a successful attack is if you counter-strike against Iran or Iranian interests, you might see the rest of the oil fields go up in flames.

And take a look at what that will do to world oil markets and to the American economy. And if you're trying to send a message to a president who is desperate to keep the American economy afloat, that's a pretty powerful message. The second thing is, it's not the first time we've seen the Iranians strike the Saudis as America's great ally, partner, and in the minds of the Iranians, their proxy. U.S. authorities believe Iranian hackers are responsible for recent cyber attacks against major oil and gas companies in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. A virus known as Shamoon struck 30,000 computers and wiped out files and replaced them with an icon of a burning American flag. So either way you slice it, this would be Iran seeking to hurt the U.S. by first hurting Saudi Arabia. That's right. Now, the Iranians deny this. And the Iranian foreign minister,

Mohammad Javad Zarif, turned out a tweet of his own saying that the United States, in accusing Iran, has moved from maximum pressure to maximum deceit. U.S. and its clients are stuck in Yemen because of the illusion that weapons superiority will lead to military victory. Blaming Iran won't end disaster. They maintain they had nothing to do with it. And that raises another question, which is, could the Iranian military have decided on its own to do this in order to prevent the president of Iran

from meeting President Trump? Of course, President Trump had expressed an openness to meeting President Rouhani in New York. If the circumstances were correct or the right, I would certainly agree to that. But in the meantime, they have to be good players. You understand what that means? You're suggesting an option where the Iranian military sabotages any kind of conversation between their president and ours. Absolutely. It's a live option. We don't have any evidence of it yet. But David, why would they do that? of it yet. But David, why would they do that? Well, just as President Trump's decision to get out of the Iran nuclear agreement was highly controversial in the United States, the decision to enter the agreement in 2015 was highly controversial inside Iran. And the Iranian

military maintained that the civilian leadership and the Ayatollahs gave up too much. And of course, they had to shut down vast parts of their nuclear program, which was run by the Iranian military. So there are factions within the military that have made it very clear that they would like to see that entire agreement completely dissolved and Iran walk away from all of the restrictions on it so they can have their nuclear program back. They're arguing, look, this has been a failure, just like we said. The Americans didn't follow through on their own commitments. They reimposed sanctions on us. It's hurting our economy. And if it's going to hurt our economy, we're going to make sure it hurts the Saudis, too. And is it to be expected that the U.S.

would launch a military response to an attack like this on an ally like Saudi Arabia? Is that sort of a foregone conclusion or not necessarily? It's not a foregone conclusion. You'll remember it was just a few months ago that the Iranian shot down a drone, an American drone, and the president decided not to go respond. In fact, the first response here may be that it's up to the Saudis to defend their own territory and to respond. But of course, if the Saudis defended their own territory and the Iranians came back and tried to wipe out more Saudi oil fields, the United States would get sucked into that war. And so you want to make sure that the Iranians don't have a way to strike back if you strike them. Otherwise, you're in an uncontrolled conflict.

And does the U.S. have such strategies that would maintain dominance without provoking an inevitable response from Iran? Well, we're about to find out, Michael, I think. There are other more subtle things you could do. You could gather the allies, show them the evidence of this strike, and do some more general sanctions on Iran. There are cyber options against Iran. And in fact, the United States has a very complex cyber attack plan against Iran that details of which leaked out a few years ago. And it would call for basically turning off much of the electric power in Iran. So there are all kinds of ways that one could get

back. But you want to be very careful with this because starting a war with Iran would be a pretty serious and fearsome thing. And one thing we've learned about Donald Trump is he has backed away at moments when he has feared getting into a more general war, including the strike that he nearly went ahead with against Iranian facilities after we lost that drone. David, you said earlier that the decision about how to proceed may actually rest with the Saudis. So what's your understanding of what they want in this moment? they want in this moment? Well, the Saudis turned out a statement on Monday, which basically was looking for international support. They made the case that the target here were international and global energy supplies. In other words, they said they weren't the target, global energy supplies were the target. And there's a key line where it says, the kingdom calls upon the international community

to assume its responsibility in condemning those who stand behind this act and to take a firm and clear position against this reckless behavior that threatens the global economy. And then they invited in UN and international experts to look at the situation, participate in the investigation. So it sounds to me like they're not urging an immediate response, but are trying to see if this is a moment to build some international consensus about Iran. David, I wonder what you think that this moment tells us. Well, it tells you how much disarray we're in. You know, it was only 2015, four years ago, that President Obama reached the nuclear deal with Iran. And there was a brief few months where there was some optimism that if the U.S. and Iran could put the nuclear disagreement behind them,

could put the nuclear disagreement behind them. It might be the opening to further cooperation or at least the end of more than three decades of constant hostility. And that's not what happened. And while there was a brief effort in the past few weeks by President Trump to show that he was willing to sit down and talk with the Iranians, that now seems off the table, at least for some time.

And there's every possibility that the response to this strike in Saudi Arabia or another strike by the Iranians or others in the region could actually trigger a regional war. And that's exactly what everybody's been trying to avoid for years now. war. And that's exactly what everybody's been trying to avoid for years now. David, I'm curious if, reading between the lines, you're saying that if the U.S. hadn't left the Iranian nuclear deal, that we might not be here right now. That's one of the great what-ifs of history. The people who supported the president's decision made the point that the Iranians didn't decrease their bad behavior after they signed the

deal in 2015. They increased it. They supported the dictator in Syria, Bashar Assad. They continued support for terrorists and that therefore this was going to happen anyway The proponents of the deal would say That by reimposing sanctions on Iran We baited them and forced them to strike out And I think people will be arguing for years Whether the decision to leave the Iranian deal was the trigger for this kind of event or whether it would have happened anyway.

David, thank you very much. Thank you, Michael. On Monday afternoon at the White House, President Trump struck a far less combative tone than he had over the weekend, saying he wanted to avoid conflict with Iran and saying he had not promised military protection to Saudi Arabia. I haven't promised the Saudis that we have to sit down with the Saudis and work something out. And the Saudis want very much for us to protect them, but I say, well, we have to work. That was an attack on Saudi Arabia, and that wasn't an attack on us.

But the president emphasized that the U.S. was ready for military conflict with Iran, if necessary. The United States is more prepared than any country in the history of, in any history, if we have to go that way, as to whether or not we go that way, we'll see. We'll have to find out definitively who did it. We'll be right back.

Here's what else you need to know today. On Monday, nearly 50,000 factory workers at General Motors walked off the job at plants across the country in their first nationwide strike since 2007. We stand strong in saying with one voice, we are standing up for our members and for the fundamental rights of working class people in this nation. The strike began after negotiators for GM and the United Auto Workers Union failed to reach an agreement over wages, health care, and job security. We're not asking for a whole lot, you know.

We have a lot of young families in there. We have temporary workers. They don't know from day to day, week to week, whether they'll have a job. And that's no way to live. The strike highlights major changes underway in the U.S. auto industry, including a shift away from sales of sedans to SUVs and pickup trucks, which has prompted GM to close factories and seek greater flexibility from its workers and for GM's workers to demand higher pay and job security.

And... Israel will hold its second election for prime minister in five months today, after the previous election ended without a viable governing coalition. without a viable governing coalition. Polls show a close race between the same leading candidates as last time. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a right-wing figure who faces possible indictment over corruption charges,

and Benny Gantz, a former military chief who has run as a more moderate voice. over corruption charges, and Benny Gantz, a former military chief, who has run as a more moderate voice. The Times reports that another inconclusive outcome remains possible, with some Israeli leaders already predicting a third election. That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.