Attack on an oil tanker in the Indian Ocean the

Attack on an oil tanker in the Indian Ocean, the shadow of Iran. Tehran’s threat: “Close the…”

The usual target: an oil tanker linked to an Israeli company. The weapon, as usual: an explosive drone. The area: About 200 miles southwest of Veraval, India. These are the parameters of a new episode along key trade routes, which includes Tehran's verbal threat to “block” the Mediterranean.

The Chem Pluto left the Saudi port of Jubail with a cargo of crude oil and was en route to Mangalore when it was hit by a flying bomb that started a fire on board. However, the sailors managed to thwart him while an Indian Coast Guard unit intervened to offer assistance.

News of the raid caught the attention of observers, particularly because of the location where it took place. The latest attacks hit the Strait of Bab el-Mandeb and were carried out by the Houthis, the pro-Iranian movement that controls part of Yemen. Ships targeted because they were headed to or belonged to Israel, a campaign of aggression by militias in support of Hamas under siege in Gaza.

– The oil tanker

However, the tanker was surprised much further east, likely beyond the operational limits of the drones used by the Shiite militants, most of which were supplied by Tehran. A detail that leads us to some hypotheses: the fighters increased their reach thanks to the support of the “Protector”; the drone was launched from a “mother ship” or from a land location; It is more likely that the incursion began from Iranian territory and was part of the duel with the Jewish state.

The plan is reminiscent of the “ambushes” of Israeli commercial shipping in the Gulf of Oman in 2021-2022, further west, near the Omani coast, on November 25 last year. According to the Jewish state, Tehran converted some facilities in the southern part of the country, the Chabahar and Qeshm bases, into launch platforms for kamikaze drones.

Processes of an extensive conflict with sabotage, retaliation by the Mossad, use of mines, secret missions. Some of the tactics have then resurfaced on the Red Sea front in recent weeks, with the Houthis protagonists of an offensive and the Pentagon responding with the creation of multinational task forces to provide some form of security for commercial traffic. It was supposed to be a unanimous response, but after Italy and France said yes by providing a frigate each, they declared that their participation in the patrol would not take place under US command. Other countries have preferred to provide support anonymously or have limited themselves to sending soldiers but not units. Be careful due to a number of diplomatic and technical considerations: 1) They do not want to side with the Israeli-American axis in what has become a wide-reaching dispute. 2) Uncertainty about the rules of engagement. 3) Fear of being indirectly implicated in possible reprisals in an increasingly serious crisis in which tensions are rising.

On Friday, Washington renewed accusations against Iran, claiming that Yemeni militants were receiving direct support from the Pasdaran: intelligence, technical assistance and basic information to attack ships in transit. The Houthis alone – so the American thesis – could not do it, even if they have experience and a huge arsenal; A contribution is needed and the Ayatollahs have offered it.

And almost as if to confirm his role here are the statements of the commander of the Pasdaran Navy, Mohammed Naqdi: The senior officer did not suspend “the closure of the Mediterranean, the Strait of Gibraltar and other waterways” in the case of the United States suspending the ” Crimes” continue in Gaza. It remains to be seen to what extent Tehran does not have a strategic air and naval force to operate so far away. The outage sounds like propaganda unless the mullahs can think of a demonstrative provocation. In his speech, Naghdi evoked the response of “resistance groups,” mentioning the Lebanese Hezbollah, the Iraqi militias and, of course, the Houthis.