World Net Daily ... The mullahs of Iran are undoubtedly rejoicing over their Sept. 14 attack against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's (KSA) oil facilities fading from America's public view. As the media saturates us with news concerning an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump's telephone conversation with the president of the Ukraine, this effectively subordinates a deadly concern to a "nothing burger." This is obvious from the answers to the questions below concerning the attack.

The attack involved seven cruise missiles and a fleet of 25 drones that targeted KSA oil assets. The drones all hit the oil-processing facility at Abqaiq. Nearby Khurais oil field was hit by four of the missiles, while the other three fell short of their Abqaiq target.

Most of the drones were deadly accurate, destroying about 5.7 million barrels of daily crude production and wiping out 5% of the world's ready oil supply. The attacks briefly drove oil prices up by 19%, the biggest leap since 1991.

The KSA is calling this brazen, unprovoked attack by Iran their own 9/11 as Tehran has crossed their "red line." While it has not yet crossed ours, one of Trump's post-attack actions now puts that future possibility into play.

We now have answers to four critical questions.

1) How do we know Iran launched the attacks?

While the KSA's oil field and production facility was still burning, Houthi rebels in Yemen claimed responsibility for the attacks. But they clearly lack the ability to make or operate such missiles and drones. However, forensic evidence identifies the real culprit is Iran, which backs the Houthis and has been locked in a 5-year-old civil war against the KSA in Yemen.

Recovery and examination of GPS units recovered from the missile debris have enabled U.S. investigators to pinpoint launch points in southern Iran, at the northern end of the Persian Gulf. Iranian involvement is further supported by debris evidence revealing a delta wing of an Iranian drone. Satellite photographs also show launch preparations being made in Iran. Interestingly, one of the missiles even flew through Kuwait, violating its airspace, to reach its target.

2) Why were the attacks undertaken?

With Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stating the attacks constitute "an act of war" and despite Tehran's protestations it was not responsible, the question remains, why would Iran have done it? 

The answer is that Iran seeks to be attacked by America or Saudi Arabia to be able to cloak itself in victimhood, using such sympathy then to generate economic aid from other nations. However, this tactic failed to work as Great Britain, France and Germany joined the United States in condemning Iran.

Iran clearly is desperate with U.S. sanctions having devastated its economy. As recently reported, "The Iranian economy is in free fall, projected to shrink by 14% this year. Out of the 18 existing retirement funds in Iran, 17 are in the red, as the government subsidies they rely on dry up." This, plus the theocratic leadership's ruthless disregard for the human rights of its people, have resulted in large-scale riots and strikes over the past year. 

There are reports destitute Iranians are even selling human organs just to survive. The mullahs worry their people are reaching a breaking point. What better way to distract them from rampant inflation and domestic turmoil than triggering an attack by the Americans and/or the Saudis?

3) Why were the attacks successful?

Because the anticipated threat of an air attack was seen as directional, coming from Yemen to KSA's south, and not coming from Iran, to KSA's north, KSA defenses were pointed in the wrong direction. Consequently, they were useless when the attack occurred.

4) What response is now mandated?

While Trump has order sanctions against Iran tightened to the highest level yet, other responses need to follow.

The U.S. clearly has ideological differences with Riyadh, acting in its role as champion of Sunni Islam. But the KSA is the best-suited regional ally to counter the aggression of Iran, acting in its role as champion of Shia Islam. 

We simply cannot allow Iranian ambitions of establishing a caliphate to go unchallenged.

Accordingly, we must not leave the Saudis isolated in their efforts to defeat the Houthis. We must, despite congressional desires otherwise, supply the KSA with the weapons needed to counter Tehran's expansionist goals. 

We must also ensure the Saudis are adequately trained to use the weapons system they buy, lest they be left with weapons having a bark but no bite. Their Iranian counterparts, manning inferior weapons systems, are able to achieve superior results simply because they are better trained in their use.

Meanwhile, just as President George H.W. Bush was able to do during the Persian Gulf War, Tehran must know Trump is building a coalition of the willing to militarily challenge continuing mullah aggression. 

This should include our Western partners (i.e., the aforementioned Europeans who have already condemned Iran) as they finally understand that no amount of Iranian appeasement works. Included as well should be other Sunni Muslim states that recognize a limited opportunity exists – now or never – to counter the mullahs' aggression.

The core of the coalition must recognize the Iranian juggernaut has to be stopped before it gains a nuclear arms capability, or it will face the consequences of failing to do so. The coalition should be motivated by the thought that if an Iran, lacking nuclear weapons, is now emboldened enough to attack the KSA and to provoke numerous confrontations in the Persian Gulf against the U.S. and our European allies, we should greatly fear what a nuclear-armed Iran will do.

In a sign of commitment, the United States has already sent troops to the KSA in an important role that defines our red line for Tehran. It now knows any future act of aggression runs the risk of harming U.S. lives and generating a fierce U.S. military response.

During their 40-year reign in Iran, the mullahs have only retreated when they realized they were confronting a committed U.S. 

Whether it was ending the hostage crisis in 1980, or getting Iran to stop mining international waters in 1988, or Tehran's offering a "grand bargain" to resolve the nuclear and terrorism issues in 2003, it was only U.S. force or the threat thereof that motivated the mullahs to curtail their aggressive acts. Anything short of this leaves them free to destabilize the world as they so desire.

The mullahs are playing a deadly chess match. Whether our red line constitutes a "check" or "checkmate" remains to be seen.