• Photos of damage to Saudis' Khurais oil field show strikes seem "suspiciously well-placed"- Did Houthis have 'insider help'?
• Houthis offer Saudi Arabia mutual halt to attacks - "We stop, you stop" - UPDATE: Saudis respond they'll 'wait and see'

The kingdom has been holding talks with its "allies and friends" to decide what to do in the aftermath of the attack, FM Adel al-Jubeir said during a press conference on Saturday.

While Yemen's Houthi rebels have claimed responsibility for the attack, Riyadh has refused to believe that they have such capability. Al-Jubeir said they are "certain that the attacks did not come from Yemen but from the north."

The Aramco attacks were undertaken with Iranian weapons and for this reason we hold Iran accountable for them.

Riyadh has taken a "wait-and-see" response to the announcement by Huthi militants in Yemen that they are halting all drone and missile attacks against Saudi Arabia.

"We judge other parties by their deeds, actions and not by their words, so we will see," Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir said after the surprise announcement by the Iran-backed rebels.

Iran denied involvement and warned the United States that any attack would lead to an "all-out war."

U.S. media had earlier reported that the Pentagon was set to present a wide range of military options to President Donald Trump on September 20.

The reports said the military would present Trump with a list of potential air-strike targets inside Iran, among other possible responses.

Washington has already announced it was imposing another round of sanctions on Iran, including on its central bank and its sovereign wealth fund, following the attack.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said on September 21 that the fresh U.S. sanctions were a "sign of U.S. desperation."

"But this is dangerous and unacceptable as an attempt at blocking ... the Iranian people's access to food and medicine," Zarif said, speaking after arriving in New York for the annual UN General Assembly next week.

In a related development, an Iranian state body in charge of cybersecurity denied reports that there had been a "successful" attack on some petrochemical and other companies in Iran.

"Based on our observations...there has not been a successful cyberattack on oil facilities and other critical infrastructure," said an official statement carried by IRNA.

NetBlocks, an organization that monitors Internet connectivity, earlier reported "intermittent disruptions" to some Internet services in Iran starting in the evening of September 20.

• Gilad Atzmon: The End of Israel
• SIPRI report: Israel owns 80-90 nuclear warheads
• 'Powerful states' blocking information on companies cashing in on illegal Israeli settlements

The corrupt cops at the FBI that protected James Comey from crimes didn't realize that by doing so they ruined their chances of attaching obstruction to candidate and President Trump!

According to the DOJ's IG report on James Comey, Comey leaked his memos to his friend who he later described as his lawyer which protected him by implementing attorney-client privilege. This protected Comey from the crime of leaking information to the press unlawfully.

But Comey was also protected by his fellow gangsters at the FBI when then labeled the memos that he leaked, other than classified. If they were labeled classified Comey would be in serious trouble for leaking classified information. So what was the FBI's supposed basis for obstruction of justice charges against Trump?

1. Trump's firing of Comey;
2. Trump's asking Comey to let Flynn go (as outlined in Memo No. 4).

So Trump's comments about letting Flynn go was THE basis, THE EVIDENCE, for obstruction of justice. That in and of itself should mean that information related to this was highly classified. But Comey's Memo No. 4 was labeled by the FBI as "unofficial business use"? How can your prime evidence in a case be labeled "unofficial business use"?

The reason why the FBI labeled it that way was because Comey gave that Memo No. 4 to his buddies and the press. It's the same tactic they pulled when they relabeled Clinton's crimes regarding her emails. I mean, either it's evidence or it isn't, because they sure were using it as evidence....

Here's the even bigger issue about this, though...In order to even begin to try to charge Trump with obstruction of evidence, you need both President Trump's firing of Comey and his asking Comey to go easy on General Flynn. You can't have one without the other. Obviously, they didn't feel as though that was enough; otherwise, they'd have charged Trump back in February when he said it, but they didn't. This means Comey screwed the investigation when he leaked his memos to the press. If they tried to charge Trump with anything related to the leaks, then they'd have to charge Comey with leaking highly classified information. What an idiot...

Which means that on day one Mueller KNEW without a doubt that HE HAD NO CASE...

What this means is, they defeated themselves. In chess parlance, it would be a stalemate, which Trump would probably ultimately win since the Paragraph 1 would come from a criminal/liar (Comey).

That's why Mueller classified Comey's "evidence" both ways, both classified and unclassified. They would pursue the obstruction of justice charges privately, quietly, treating Comey's memos as "highly classified," while their public face would be treating them as "unclassified" so that Comey wouldn't be charged. That's why Trump's legal team told Mueller, we will tear you to shreds in a court of law, and Mueller backed down. Corrupt Mueller knew he would lose.