Last week, the Trump Administration hosted internal meetings including top military, diplomatic, and intelligence officials met at CIA headquarters to discuss plans against Iran, including “covert actions” that were being launched, and the recent dispatching of US forces to the region.
This meeting immediately prefaced the US suddenly talking up the
possibility of military action against Iran, with several officials
vowing “swift, decisive action” against them.
Though intelligence officials have insisted that others are “exaggerating” the intelligence, administration officials keep claiming Iran might’ve been about to attack the US, or US interests in some form.
So while Pompeo is warning Iran against attacking,
administration hawks are salivating, as a potential Iranian attack is
the ticket to war they’ve long dreamed of, and even a situation where
Iran doesn’t intend to attack gives the US the pretext to keep
escalating, and potentially launch a preemptive attack.
What would BiBi do???
Yes, I ask myself that every morning when I rise….
Attack Iran? Yeah, why not…the world economy is overrated anyway. It’s not like the petro-dollar hasn’t had a good run. I mean, why not? It would make a handful of zionists very happy, and we know that America only cares about the happiness of its frothing one-eyed zionists. Everyone else can just pound sand.
And does the American public care? About this or Venezuela? About this casual approach to war, the most critical, dreadful, horrible act we can take?
Oh no, ho hum, here we go, at war again. And isn’t it great, always picking enemies who can’t shoot back?
Any “attack” by Iran at this point will only be viewed by the rest of the world as the Gleiwitz incident was in August of 1939, when German SS operatives dressed as Polish agents attacked a German radio station and broadcast vile anti-German messages. The whole idea was to make it appear to be the work of Polish saboteurs. Germany invaded Poland the next day.
two sides to that story. https://carolynyeager.net/gleiwitz-%E2%80%9Cfalse-flag%E2%80%9D-incident-pure-fiction
Every false flag has two sides, the official version and the truth.
“The CIA has a seasoned intelligence officer, Mike D’Andrea, running its Iran operations.” That NBC News link all but came out and said that the US has a very active and ongoing covert warfare program against Iran. Silly me, thinking the CIA would leave it up to Israel and the Saudis to trigger an Iranian reaction that would result in all-out war.
The gov’t of Iran ought to go. Only a gov’t which will proceed immediately to produce or obtain a nuclear weapon makes sense. Danger of an American attack is significant and will grow. A nuclear weapon for deterrence is necessary for national survival.
Nothing like handing a direct excuse to the US to attack, not to mention Israel.
Iran has no use case for nuclear weapons. One or a few nukes are useless as a deterrence. North Korea was being threatened daily until Kim and South Korea pushed for peace despite having nukes and a delivery system. Only if you have both a delivery system and enough nukes to be a credible existential threat can you use nukes as a deterrence. The only countries that qualify are the US, Russia and China (and India and Pakistan, but only with regard to each other.)
Not to mention Iran doesn’t want nukes and have said repeatedly that they understand how useless they would be in this situation.
Tell that to Saddam and half a million dead Iraqis.
That’s exactly why Iran had a “feasibility study” back when they were afraid Saddam had a nuke program. And once Saddam was overthrown, that’s exactly why Iran stopped its program and never restarted it. That’s what the DIA concluded in the run up to the 2007 NIE Iran report.
Saddam was Iran’s ONLY use case for nukes because Saddam with nukes was an existential threat. No one else in the region is likely to be an existential threat except the US and Israel and Iran can never catch up to them with enough nukes to be a credible deterrence before those countries attack them and prevent them from getting that deterrence.
And they’ve repeatedly said they understand that.
North Korea is a different case. NK has such enormous conventional forces that attacking them to prevent them from getting nukes would be extremely difficult. So the US didn’t. But the US would still attack them if it looked like NK was a serious threat to the US or South Korea. But since Kim and South Korea are pushing for peace, the US can’t credibly attack them any more unless the peace talks completely collapse. Which is unlikely because Kim wants the US off his back, so he will continue to try to keep the talks going.
Iran, however, is under the gun because Israel wants Iran gone, and so do the neocons. Obama only did a deal because he needed at least one foreign policy “success” legacy. He knew it would be abrogated after he left office, either by Clinton or a Republican. So Iran can’t get a deal any more unless someone like Tulsi Gabbard becomes President, which is unlikely.
But Iran will never start a nuclear weapons program because they don’t want them and can’t use them. Why spend billions on weapons you’ll never get to use? Better to spend that money on mobile missiles and air defenses you will need.
“The regime in Tehran should understand that any attacks by them or their proxies of any identity against US interests or citizens will be answered with a swift and decisive US response,” Pompeo said in a statement.
“Our restraint to this point should not be mistaken by Iran for a lack of resolve,” he said.
Restraint. That’s humorous.
Here, we got “unrelenting force”, and “it won’t be a fair fight”, to warm the cockles. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/us-mideast-commander-warns-tehran-an-iranian-attack-would-be-met-with-unrelenting-force
“And it won’t be a fair fight.”
Do we know of any other kind?
The dream that President Trump has never been a so-called “Deep Stater” at heart has now been completely shattered. He may not be the traditional DSer because he has created his own “Deep State”. The only issue which remains for certain ACers is to admit that they were grandly fooled by Trump.
Tell you what, Dieter, if and when Trump orders a military attack on Venezuela or Iran, then, fair enough, I’ll be agreeing with you and “admitting” that I was fooled by Trump. Till then, I’m withholding judgment.
“i will only concede attempted murder when you show me a dead body”
Why is it that it takes a military attack to admit that you were fooled by Trump? Do you approve of strangling those countries into submission economically and arranging coups as acceptable, as long as we don’t drop bombs on them?
Even a military attack won’t suffice to get most of the non-interventionist TDS (antigen-positive) victims to believe Trump conned them. If he nuked Monaco right after another hush money girlfriend popped up, they’d still believe he was simultaneously Making America Great Again and a helpless hostage.
Tells you what, Dieter, if and when Trump orders a military attack on Russia, then, fair enough, I’ll be agreeing with you and “admitting” that I was fooled by Trump. Till then, I’m withholding judgment and happy crazy Hillary didn’t get elected so she could “confront Putin” and possibly have him answer with a couple hundred megatons of thermo nuclear fire. Hillary had “Confront Putin” as an item in her campaign platform.. I think she had it in her mind to show Putin and the world that she is tougher than him. And I won’t go out drinking with a guy that wants to throw a drink in the face of the toughest guy in the bar. I don’t do unprofitable trouble, and try to avoid trouble in general.
That trump is ok because Clinton would start ww3, is setting the bar so low, that the only case where you might be wrong, is if we are all dead, and it doesn’t matter. “Might’ve” does not address the terrain we now traverse.
Yeah, grandly fooled by bumbling Trump….. Ummmmm Sure…. But which alternative are you suggesting which would have been wiser?Seeing how the actual alternatives are so few with our clever two party clustermuck of a system, I can only surmise you are thinking that Hillary & Billy Bob would have been the choice that was wiser and NOT foolhardy like those who voted for Trump. The elemental flaw, in my mind, is the very little discussed detail of the item “Confront Putin” on Hillary’s platform. So that Hillary advertised an intention to confront the second most powerful man on this planet in terms of sheer throw weight of thermo nuclear firepower. Did Trump ever threaten to confront anyone even vaguely as capable of ending life as we know here in these United States…???? What do you think would be the targets that Putin would choose were he to decide to show Hillary and her pants suit army that Russia will not allow itself to be pushed around and confronted by anyone or any state and show there is a price to be paid for such an attempt. Or do you believe that there is ZERO chance of Russia calling her bluff to the tune of a couple of hundred megatons of destructive force? If so then perhaps electing her would have been a grand success of patriotic bluster. Aside from the fact that such a shaming can lead states to double down on offensive weapons & “eat grass if necessary” resolve to get the funds and weapons to end the shame so the citizens can once again hold their heads high, and gain deterrence against their foes. Let us know what you think that Hillary confronting Putin would lead to in the way Russia & Putin would respond and how or if they would try to save face.
Is it possible to have been fooled by Trump no matter what Hillary might have done?
Yawn, everyone that despises Clinton believe that she would bring WW3, and, everyone that despised trump said he would bring WW3. They are all wrong. So far today.
Any missile fired at Iran should have these Zionist traitors physically tied to each missile. Enough of these sick and ever mendacious cowards. Deport them to Israel where they belong.
Notice this vague word “interests” as if there is a genuine casus belli because some of your commercial or other “interests” are threatened according to your biased estimation. Hardly even vaguely legal, when you have already tossed aside a serious , working agreement with a party who keeps to it.