Share

Did Iran Attack Japanese Oil Tanker in Strait of Hormuz?

by: Ben Hancock  |  The Christian Science Monitor | Report

A sea mine may have been responsible for denting a 160,000-ton Japanese oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz this week, investigators in the United Arab Emirates said Thursday, although the boat's owner maintains it was likely attacked.

There is still much conflicting speculation about what punched a large dent into the side of the M Star tanker, which was on its way back to Japan after filling up in the UAE. Earlier reports that a freak wave smacked the ship have been dismissed, while boat owner Mitsui O.S.K. Lines maintains that its vessel was probably attacked. (See company statement.)

Crewmen reported seeing a flash of light on the horizon just before an explosion.

Some are pointing fingers at Iran, as it carefully guards its territorial waters and laid thousands of floating mines for that purpose during the Iran-Iraq war – some of which remain today. This week's incident occurred near where five armed Iranian fast boats confronted a flotilla of US Navy ships in 2008 while on patrol about 12 miles from Iranian territory in the Strait of Hormuz, sparking a confrontation.

The M Star is currently being inspected at the UAE port of Fujairah. No oil has leaked from the ship since it was struck in the early hours of Wednesday morning in Omani waters. But the hull was found to be punctured about four meters above the waterline, reports The National in Dubai. The newspaper also quoted a local expert as saying that a collision was not a possibility, and another ruled out a rocket grenade attack.

Mustafa Alani, a senior adviser on terrorism and security at the Gulf Research Center in Dubai, said the damage to the ship’s starboard, near the stern, appeared to match that of a floating mine. Although sea mines were designed to cause more damage, one that was 20 years old would have lost some of its potency, he said.

“They tried to clear as many as possible, but there were many thousands put down during the Iran-Iraq war,” Mr. Alani said.

“It’s not a [rocket-propelled grenade]. The collapsed area, if it were an RPG, would be a round spot. There would be more blackness. It doesn’t look like there was a direct impact point, which you would see with an RPG.” The damage at the water level also indicated a mine, he added.

Japan’s English-language Daily Yomiuri quoted “a high-ranking Maritime Self-Defense Force firearms expert” as saying that a small boat collision was highly likely. But a Japanese Coast Guard official told the newspaper that, because the dent was higher than the water line, a collision seemed improbable. Siding with that view, the US Navy's 5th Fleet, which patrols the region, told The Associated Press it had ruled out a collision with any of its vessels.

A Reuters analysis argues that conditions at sea can make it difficult to determine precisely what happened in any given incident.

As with the sinking of a South Korean warship in March, the hijacking of the freighter Arctic Sea last year or even the Gulf of Tonkin incident that helped spark the Vietnam war, getting to the truth of what happened could prove hard or impossible. ...

"In international waters, it is always difficult to tell what happened," said Jonathan Wood, global issues analyst at Control Risks. "It could be an accident or it could be an attack. If you are an investor, there is not much you can do except sit and wait and watch the news and market reaction."

... Attacks on land are hard enough to probe, but at sea independent witnesses may be scarce, radar and satellite coverage patchy and physical evidence at the bottom of the sea.

Attacks are rare in the Strait of Hormuz, a passage through which 40 percent of the world’s oil is shipped. In 1987 a US-chartered tanker was struck by a mine near Fujairah amid the Iran-Iraq war, causing an oil spill, The Christian Science Monitor reported at the time. Shippers worried about the safety of their vessels in the Persian Gulf as Iraq stepped up attacks on its neighbor.

Now, Iranian threats to close off the strait in retaliation against economic sanctions may be a bigger threat. A senior Iranian official has warned that Tehran “will act correspondingly in the world's most strategic waterway if its enemies decide to make global shipping routes unsafe for the country's cargo ships,” the Arabic-language Fars news agency reports, according to Press TV. 

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.

Support Truthout's work with a $10/month tax-deductible donation today!
Share         

»


Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.

The claim about a "sea-mine"

The claim about a "sea-mine" is not credible. Mines float in, not above, the water - same as ships. M-Star hull damage was all above the waterline. Look for a rocket with a proximity fuze. Who? Why. Also obvious...

Perivail Benway " Who? Why.

Perivail Benway
" Who? Why. Also obvious..."

I agree. It's a setup by the U.S./Israeli cabal to provoke a confrontation.

The neocon psychopaths will have their day, again.

no ,if they wanted to sink

no ,if they wanted to sink it they could have

As a practical matter oil

As a practical matter oil tankers simply do not sink. They can leak, but because the oil constitutes most of the mass of the ship and because the oil is (usually) lighter than seawater and because the ships are really huge, they are more or less unsinkable. The straits are militarized and tense - the simple explanation is that some kid in some coastal battery, on some ship or some boat, discharged a small military rocket that had a proximity fuse - probably by accident. However, the fact that things are so tense is NOT an accident - the "why" - because the Empire cannot abide a non-subject Persia.

An Israeli submarine is the

An Israeli submarine is the most likely culprit.

Gee, didn't hundreds of oil tankers get sunk during WW II?

Yes indeed – an astute

Yes indeed – an astute question regarding tankers and their sinking. Regrettably however the question reveals a lack of familiarity with such ships. Some may wish to become informed on a subject prior to making remarks, and we see that someone has asked a question, which suggests that they know that they don’t know – a good start! Tankers are broadly divided into crude carriers and product carriers. In the war there was little need to transport crude through submarine-infested waters – armies ran on gasoline. So the majority of sinkings were of the targets available – product carriers (often carrying gasoline). After the gas burns off the ship is free to sink, moreover as fire progresses such ships, single hull T-2s for example, generally explode – an event that makes sinking more or less an anticlimax… The tankers in question were tiny by the standards of to-day. According to Lloyd’s, Tanker M-Star is a crude carrier of 314016 tons. The WW2 product carriers rarely exceeded 16,000 tons. However the difference in size tends to obscure the less obvious and more significant fact – and this is why such large ships are built – that the ratio of cargo to the mass of the empty ship is far more favorable for larger ships. Thus the effect of the cargo, the tendency for the cargo itself to float the ship, is far larger for modern a VLCC such as M-Star, as is the lower crew cost per ton of cargo delivered, lower specific fuel consumption, etc. Additionally, sinking a modern double-hulled VLCC would present very serious technical problems. Just off-the-cuff I’d say that a speedboat-suicide team would have a nearly impossible job – they’d have to board, subdue the crew, and plant something like a small atom-bomb inside the ship – possibly immersed deep in crude – something like 100 feet below the deck. These are immense structures. As to submarine, well, if the submarine had a speedboat and a few kids with hand-held rockets… It’s possible, but improbable. Sub skippers presumably know how to sink ships…