Reports from Reuters today claim American and British naval forces have been deployed to protect Saudi Arabian and Bahraini oil facilities against a possible terrorist strike from Al Qaeda:

LONDON (Reuters) – Coalition naval forces are helping to guard vital oil installations in the Gulf as part of heightened security following an Al Qaeda threat last month, naval sources said on Friday.

In their sights are Saudi Arabia’s Ras Tanura terminal, the world’s biggest offshore oil export facility, and Bahrain’s Bapco refinery.

“Acting on information received, Coalition naval forces, operating in support of Saudi and Bahraini forces have deployed units to counter a possible maritime threat to the oil facilities at Ras Tanura,” Britain’s Royal Navy in Dubai said in a statement.

A Saudi security adviser also said any operations in the Gulf were entirely routine and added there had been no further threat since Al-Qaeda on September 11 said it would target economic interests in the Gulf.

“This is part of the on-going exercises between the U.S., British, Bahraini and Kuwaiti forces… in the Gulf,” said Nawaf Obaid.

(cont.)
Note the timing. This alleged terrorist threat came last month. The Saudi security advisor as much as said all it amounted to was a generic claim by Al Qaeda, made on September 11th this year, to “target economic interests in the Gulf.” Yet, today, a statement is issued by British Royal Navy that American and British naval forces have been deployed to counter specific threats to Saudi Arabia’s Ras Tanura terminal, and Bahrain’s Bapco refinery.

So who’s telling the truth: the spokesperson for the Saudis or the Royal Navy? And do the upcoming US elections have anything to do with the Royal Navy’s statement regarding this alarming, and previously undisclosed, terrorist threat to oil supplies from the Persian Gulf?

Unfortunately, this news of a terror threat to our friends in the Gulf fits a pattern of possibly false or misleading news reports originating either from stories in foreign media outlets, or generated by actions taken by foreign governments allied with, or friendly to, the current government of the United States. These reports then filter into American media with enhanced credibility because the original sources cannot be traced directly to Pentagon or other Bush administration officials.

Now, perhaps there is a significant terrorist threat to these Saudi and Bahraini facilities. I can’t say there isn’t, but something doesn’t smell right to me. This is just the sort of story that some might conclude would benefit President Bush and Republicans in a tough election campaign this year. Combine that with the timing of the report by the Royal Navy and the Saudi denials and there is plenty of room to cast doubt upon the bona fides of this vague, and rather poorly described terror threat.

There is also reason to suspect that this may be the beginning of a false flag operation of some kind, engineered to alarm voters and distract the media from reporting about the increasing violence in Iraq in the final days leading up to the election. Only time will tell whether any of these suspicions of mine are justified, but to my way of thinking this story bears close watching over the next few days to see what develops.





































Update [2006-10-27 13:53:37 by Steven D]: Related stories:

Specialized British Minesweepers deployed to Persian Gulf.

Two of the [British] Navy’s smallest but most sophisticated and expensive warships are preparing to leave their Clyde base at Faslane for a two-year deployment to the Persian Gulf. […]

The unspoken reason for the posting is to allow crews to learn how to counter the potential threat of Iranian sea mines along the West’s strategic oil routes in the region.

Specialized US Navy undersea inshore warfare unit deployed to Persian Gulf.

Navy Mobile In-Shore Undersea Warfare Unit (MIUWU) 112 deployed from Naval Base Coronado, Calif., Oct. 25 to conduct maritime security operations (MSO) in the Persian Gulf. Part of the recently established Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC), and one of 11 units within the Naval Coastal Warfare Group, MIUWU 112 deployed 94 Reservists to provide security and surveillance against seaward and landward threats. The main goal of our mission is anti-terrorism/force protection, said Senior Chief Storekeeper Edward R. Schmiedeke of MIUWU 112. The unit will operate small water craft and protect ships in and out of port.

… MIUWU 112 is a commissioned component of the Navy’s force protection package, providing support for commanders operating in littoral areas worldwide. In January, the Navy created the NECC, bringing Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD), Naval Coastal Warfare, Navy Expeditionary Logistics Support functions and the Seabees under one umbrella. NECC integrates all warfighting requirements for expeditionary combat and combat support elements. This transformation allows for standardized training, manning and equipping of Sailors who will participate in the global war on terrorism as part of the joint force. It also results in more capable, responsive and effective expeditionary Sailors.