Da fuk is "Drudge"?
It sounds like what's smeared inside the toilet bowl when I'm done taking a shit.
Ok folks, NavAnon here.
Had a chance to take a look at photos of at least one tanker.
Doesn't look like a torp attack that I can see. The damage appears to be partly to mostly above the waterline, which leads me to believe it was a placed charge or missile.
Black smoke from the tanker indicates that it's oil burning, so it obviously has some fuel in its holds; however, it's riding "high" with about 8-10 feet of "red" anti-fouling paint showing below its "freeboard" black paint. Ergo, it's not heavy laden with oil, meaning it's mostly empty. Black smoke, BTW, is a clear indicator of a class "B" fire which is caused by burning petroleum products.
I reiterate that it appears unlikely this was a torp attack. The ship in the photos I've seen does not appear to be listing to one side or "down" at either the bow or the stern, which would be a likely occurrence for an underwater penetration. (Listing due to water weighing down one side more than the other; being down at either end due to water pumping operations not likely to keep up with water intake.) The photo shows plainly obvious water being pumped out at the anchors, but it does not appear that other discharges are similarly operating. If it was, there would be cascades of water flowing from multiple places.
This is most likely the work of a missile attack (doubtful because of the radar signatures such an attack would leave) or a swimmer attack planting limpet mines.
I don't entirely discount the possibility of a submarine attack. Conditions appear ripe for it. This incident happened in the Gulf of Oman, not inside the Arabian Gulf (notoriously shallow and therefore easier to spot lurking subs visually from air.) The Gulf of Oman is fairly deep (200+ feet near the Strait of Hormuz rapidly deepening to 1,500+ feet within 20 miles or so of the "bight" of the Hormuz). That gives submarines plenty of room to avoid detection.
However, I discount the idea of submarines for 3 reasons. First, the Iranian subs by my last information are docked at bases inside the Arabian Gulf, which is shallow and easily monitored. Second, the damage does not appear consistent with a torpedo attack (sub torps tend to pack a larger punch than the damage shown in the photos). Third, Iranian subs not in port would trigger significantly CLOSE monitoring by US attack subs. We would have had some confirmation of a submarine attack by now (and likely a submarine kill).
My 2 cents. I think it's a swimmer attack using limpet mines, based on the available info. I could very well be wrong.
As to who owns the swimmers? My $$ is on Iran, due to the Kerry "buck up" visit and their general disposition to use plausibly deniable terrorism (and forget the "it could be us" info, this is a game anyone can play).
Why not us? Nothing to gain.
Why them? See, generally, spiking oil prices.