More questions concerning the bombing of the Saudi oil processing facility at Abqaiq. See my previous post for the beginning of this discussion.

If the Houthis, on whom the Saudis have been waging war for over four years, performed this operation, then there is no need for more speculation. It was a straight-forward military tactic to inflict injury on an opponent in a war. End of story. If it brings the Saudis to a point where they are willing to negotiate an end to the war, then more power to the Houthis. In fact, hit them again. Harder, this time.

But, if the Houthis did not do this, then why did they say they did? Why was that declaration immediate unless they knew in advance that it was going to happen? If they knew in advance that it was coming, then who told them? If someone else told them and they agreed to claim responsibility for it, then what was promised to them for their cooperation? Furthermore, if someone else was responsible for the attack, what was their rationale and purpose behind it?

Perhaps the Houthis actually did execute a high-tech, perfectly synchronized, flawless attack on an enemy’s territory which was supposedly “protected” by the most modern defensive weapons available. Or not. I am highly skeptical. My inclination is to think that another party is involved here. This has all the earmarks of a false-flag designed to persuade and coerce the US (and the American people) into waging yet another Middle-East war. So far, I haven’t seen any evidence presented which makes me think I ought to change my mind. I simply don’t believe the official narrative.

It is easy to focus on the question of who did it and try to pinpoint the perpetrator. The far more important one, though, is who benefits from the action. Cui bono? Merriam-Webster defines the phrase as, “: a principle that probable responsibility for an act or event lies with one having something to gain.” No matter what, the party which would gain the most by having the US attack Iran is unquestionably the state of Israel, with Saudi Arabia tracking closely behind it.

Politically speaking, it is not in Israel’s interest to have widespread peace breaking out in the neighborhood. If this did happen and the antagonistic parties started working out their disagreements civilly and peacefully, then the police state in power in Jerusalem would have less justification to maintain their policies of brutal repression and the continual drive for military dominance and superiority. Where’s the money in that? If the US attacked and destroyed Iran, Israel would have no viable competition left to challenge its dominance in the region.

Neither is it in the Saud’s interest to negotiate a cease-fire with the Houthis, since that would infer a catastrophic defeat of the Kingdom by a vastly inferior foe. This perception alone might be enough to cause a “regime change” and a course correction within the government of the House of Saud, something which the powers-that-be are not willing to tolerate. If the US attacked and destroyed Iran, the price of oil would go up astronomically, conferring an immediate financial benefit on the Saudis which they desperately need. That is, if anyone else could afford to buy it.

Considering this, it’s easy to imagine that either the Israelis or the Saudis (or both) orchestrated this singular event, in the hopes that the US would then jump in and destroy Iran or that it would draw attention away from the fact that the war in Yemen is going badly for Saudi Arabia. Neither of these is far-fetched. The kicker is that if the US doesn’t respond in the hoped-for manner and refuses to attack Iran, then the whole operation has been a colossal failure on the part of the perpetrators. One can hope.

I would like to believe that the Houthis actually did execute this attack and that they can use it (and more like it, if necessary) to drive the Sauds to the negotiating table. Ending the war in Yemen by inflicting severe injuries on the Saudi apparatus is a desirable benefit. My gut instinct, however, tells me differently.