The attacks on the Abqaiq refinery and the oil field of Khurais have lifted a curtain on the vulnerability of Saudi Arabia and its own ability to defend
Aramco and its production facilities. And by extension, the attacks directly challenge the
US commitment to defend the mobility and accessibility of global energy markets. This attack has been on Saudi Arabia, but it is really an attack on the United States and its leadership commitment in the Arabian Peninsula and beyond (see:
Saudi oil facility attack challenges Washington's credibility - AEI). Former White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci said President Donald Trump's remarks that the United States is
"locked and loaded" in response to an attack on Saudi Arabian oil fields are a "predictable level of irrationality from him."
Trump used similar language in June when he announced he had called off an attack on Iran just as the US was "cocked & loaded" to strike because he decided it would cause too many deaths for a proportionate response to Tehran's downing of a US drone.
Recent cases illustrate the prevalent concern among many analysts and former policymakers that failures to take military action are the principle factors damaging U.S. credibility today. Former U.S. Defense Secretary and Director of Central Intelligence Leon Panetta who served in multiple Democratic administrations strongly
criticized President Barack Obama’s failure to strike Syria after previously drawing a “red line” against the use of chemical weapons in 2013. He expressly said this failure to follow through on this threat was “damaging” to U.S. credibility and that “it was important for us to stand by our word and go in and do what a commander in chief should do.” Meanwhile, former French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius
decried Obama’s failure to strike as a more consequential damaging “turning point, not only for the crisis in the Middle East, but also for Ukraine, Crimea, and the world” (see:
American Credibility is Dangerously Low: Just Not For the Reasons You May Think - Foreign Policy Research Institute).
Similar critiques were levied against President Donald Trump’s last minute
decision in June 2019 to call off US military strikes against Iran in apparent retaliation for the downing of an unmanned reconnaissance aircraft over the Strait of Hormuz. In fact, a former advisor to John McCain’s presidential campaign and well-regarded scholar Kori Schake
excoriated President Trump’s decision as “much worse” than Obama’s while concluding that this record of making “empty threats that damage American credibility . . . will encourage other adversaries to challenge America in other theaters.”
Something interesting took place. The Houthis or "Houthis" have carried out a large scale strike against Saudi oil infrastructure. Allegedly it was carried out by UAVs and ballistic missiles, but there are suspicions of other assets (cruise missiles for example). The Saudis even claim that some of the strikes came from outside of Yemen.
Not sure if your information is correct. It may not be the Houthis as their claims of responsibility do not remotely tally with reported facts. IMO, the Houthies could not have performed this level of coordinated multiple attacks on 5 separate sites, simultaneously. Nor have they demonstrated this level of target selection for effects, or this consistent precision striking, nor over this range, or undetected on such a scale, nor with so many weapons in flight. The Houthis say they did it; the US insists that it was Iran; the Iranians deny any involvement. See this CSIS discussion on ‘
The Attack on Saudi Arabia’.
According to other news reports, US officials said there were 19 points of impact on the
Abqaiq refinery. Washington has blamed Tehran for the attacks, which cut five percent of world crude oil production. The attacks had come from a west-north-west direction - not Houthi-controlled territory in Yemen, which lies to the south-west of the Saudi oil facilities. The officials said that could suggest launch sites in the northern Gulf, Iran or Iraq (See:
US says data shows Iran behind Saudi oil attacks). But Iraq denied that the attacks were launched from its territory. Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi said Mr Pompeo had assured him in a phone call on 16 Sept 2019 that the US backed Iraq's position.
FP: Evidence is growing that the attack was massive in scope and sophisticated enough to avoid Saudi missile defenses. What does this say about Tehran’s capabilities?
Vice Adm. John Miller: It’s too soon for us to really understand how the actual attack occurred, whether it was drones or cruise missiles. The facilities that were attacked are pretty vast, and so I’m guessing the Saudi Patriot [missile] defense system, it has limitations, of course, to it. It seems to me that the actual attack came from areas where their Patriot defense wasn’t complete. They kind of got in through the back door.
It was a very sophisticated attack that couldn’t have been conducted, in my view, from the Houthis in Yemen or by some sort of rogue group in Iraq. It showed a sophisticated understanding of the missile defenses and how to strike in a way that the missile defenses were unable to respond.
This was absolutely a coordinated attack, this was [Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps]. They are connected directly to the supreme leader—there are no mistakes here.
In this case, the oil price saw its biggest one-day rise since the 1991 Gulf War, soaring 20% but falling back later. The international benchmark used by traders, Brent crude, jumped to US$71.95 (£57.53) a barrel at one point. Prices eased after President Trump authorised a possible release of US reserves. Japan said on 17 Sept 2019, that it would consider a coordinated release of oil reserves if necessary. US Energy Secretary Rick Perry told business channel CNBC that
it was too early to tell if this would be necessary. However,
Energy Intelligence reported that as much as 40% of that disrupted production (about 2.3 million barrels per day) was
already restored one day after the attack. Russia’s UN ambassador, who currently chairs the UN Security Council, says the attacks on key Saudi oil installations were “unanimously and unequivocally condemned” by all 15 council members. Vassily Nebenzia said after a council meeting on Yemen on Monday that “it is inadmissible that civil objects and socio-economic infrastructure are being targeted.”
