US Blames Iran for Gulf Tanker Sabotage, Iraq Rocket Attack

29 thoughts on “US Blames Iran for Gulf Tanker Sabotage, Iraq Rocket Attack”

1. Same old bovine excrement. Different a$$hole emitting it.

2. More far fetched stories from the crazies who now populate the State Department and White House.

3. Yes, Iran did it. They’re suicidal. Why else would a country that would be destroyed in any military conflict have a “campaign” that includes egging on the military that plans on destroying them? Amazing how all of our foes are militarily pipsqueaks and are apparently the dumbest mother**kers on the planet.

   1. Second dumbest mother**ckers. (Actually not, per your sarcasm.) The actual dumbest are those that believe the Iranians are that crazy/stupid.

      “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.” Reagan’s CIA Director William Casey

   2. the idea that iran would be “destroyed” in any military conflict is dubious.
      unless the usa goes all in with several hundred thousand troops or just straight up nukes the place, a conflict with iran could easily be an overwhelming victory for the islamic republic and the possible collapse of all the sunni monarchies.

      1. It would likely be equally devastating for everyone involved. Iran would be left in shambles but the US may not have another Vietnam in her.

         1. A US bombing campaign in Iran would cause millions of refugees, as it is well known the US commits war crimes over and over destroying civilian infrastructure, the world over. The refugees from Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine caused the arab spring civil wars throughout the ME. War in Iran will be catastrophic to the region. This is by design. US militant planners are thrilled about the results of the forever wars in the ME. And, they should hang.

            1. They are fools. Their precious empire runs on fumes. All they can achieve is reeking more misery before the collapse. It’s pure nihilism at it’s most recklessly unhinged. Slitting your throat to spite your head. These people are goddamn maniacs. We need a revolution.

      2. Destroyed in the sense that Syria was destroyed. Iran would win but it would still be a pile of rubble. Unless of course Russia steps in and then the whole planet will be a pile of rubble.

4. “And it’s true, we are immune
   When fact is fiction and TV reality
   And today, the millions cry
   We eat and drink while tomorrow, they die”

5. “High confidence, or, we assess”=we don’t have a mucking clue!

6. As I recall, in 1939 Poland decided it would be a good idea to attack a German radio station.

7. Once again, the whole purpose of talking up “Iranian proxies” anywhere in the Middle East is to propagandize the US public into supporting a war against Hezbollah in Lebanon – the biggest and most dangerous “proxy” there is, from Israel’s point of view.

   There will be no war with Iran until the US and Israel degrade Hezbollah.

   1. I agree, if the plan was to occupy parts of Iran, the tasty coastal bits. Yet, what we observe, is for the US to bomb from afar, destroy civilian infrastructure under the guise of “military targets”, and then retire to their bunkers. This method causes the most damage, death and profit. The US can hold no territory, unless they can bring in enough concrete to secure it. I don’t believe Lebanon need be invaded for the US militants to achieve this.

      1. Wrong. Bombing Iran from the air will not prevent Iran from closing the Straits of Hormuz. While the oil companies would welcome the oil price spike, the US would be forced by the rest of the world to occupy the coast of Iran on the Persian Gulf to prevent Iran from continuing to mine the Gulf. And the US would not succeed in that, as well. But it would require the US to put tens of thousands of US troops on that coast (as well as continual B-52 bombing) which would then subject them to continuous attacks from the Iranian military, IRGC, and the Basij militia.

         Destroying the Iranian conventional military bases and the civilian infrastructure would not prevent Iran from retaliating across the Middle East. That would directly include Hezbollah in Lebanon raining up to 6,500 missiles a day on Israel. Israel can not afford that sort of war economically.

         Israel tried to remove Hezbollah in 2006 and failed miserably. Israel is far stronger today than in 2006. Israel requires the US to help it dislodge Hezbollah. It will require around 10,000 US troops to assist Israel’s 10-15,000 troops to root out Hezbollah troops in Southern Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley. It will also require those B-52s Trump sent to the Middle East, which will be used to destroy underground bunkers and missile caches, as was done in Vietnam (and it was effective in Vietnam when specific targets could be identified.)

         So as I said, it is a necessary precondition for a war with Iran – of any sort – that Hezbollah be degraded first. And that is the present target. All the Iranian proxy talk is ultimately going to be directed at Hezbollah once Israel can foment some sort of incident to justify another attack on Lebanon.

         1. I disagree. Israel succeeded in the 06 war in the method I described. Destroyed Lebanese civilian infrastructure, and killed civilians. I guess Hezbollah wins because they retain the rubble, and get to attempt to remedy the enormous refugee problem. Israel goes home, and the US replaces their bomb stockpile. You are married to an antiquated military strategy…occupation. What the plan is now, is destruction, and mayhem. That is what we observe. All US militants know, any attack on Iran, closes the straights. Doesn’t matter.
            So, here’s a scenario…the US false flags an attack in the gulf, and respond against military targets. Create another, and go big time after infrastructure. The US bolsters Israeli defence against Lebanon, and if Hezbollah does not attack, they false flag again and then rubble Lebanon, again. If they rocket Israel, that’s great for US militancy, as they get to invoke Tom Hanks defending from ” genocidal antisemitism again, Hollywoods favorite myth. In this scenario, the impetus is on Hezbollah to attack Israel, with the US as cavalry to save the day. Meanwhile, Lebanon, and Iran, are rubbled. Millions of refugees add to the social destruction in neighboring states.

            1. Israel obviously did not succeed in 2006 as they’ve been threatening Lebanon for the last 13 years and been unable to do anything about Hezbollah because of Hezbollah’s demonstrated ability to defeat Israel.

               What did Israel gain from 2006? Nothing but some dead civilians – and not enough dead civilians to do them any good, either, except increase their pariah-ship worldwide.

               If the US doesn’t need to occupy the shores of Iran to prevent closing the Straits, then why did they bother occupying Iraq? Why not just do what Bush Sr, did and bomb Iraq, then avoid invading and occupying? The goal for Bush Jr,. was to prevent Iraq from messing with the OPEC oil price, as Greg Palast proved. Plus as the Leveretts proved, the neocons told Israel they were going to invade Iran next, with Iraq as the launching point.

               So the goal was always more than mere bombing.

               Your view is simply assuming that mere destruction is the goal of US and Israeli warmongers. It’s not. They have actual goals of economic benefit and destabilization of the Middle East and for that to work they have to do regime changes. Iran isn’t going to be regime-changed and Hezbollah is likely to remain influential in Lebanon after US attacks. While the neocons and Israel don’t understand that, they will try to achieve those goals.

               Just bombing so they can replace their arsenals afterward for the benefit of the military-industrial complex isn’t sufficient to explain their actions – although certainly that is one benefit the military-industrial complex supports. But the neocons and Israel have other motivations.

               You need a more sophisticated analysis of your opponents to understand what will happen. Israel can’t afford to start – or let the US start – an Iran war until Hezbollah is degraded. So that is the next event to occur.

            2. I am not discounting what you say. Nor am I claiming “what will happen”. I am observing what has happened. In 2006, Israel did not occupy, but did rubble Lebanon. What do you suppose the US could about the Iraqi factions that will support Iran ?

            3. In 2006, Israel didn’t occupy because they couldn’t afford the level of casualties that Hezbollah could inflict on them. Hezbollah forced them out of Lebanon once before, and in 2006 Hezbollah was much stronger than it was then. Israel would have had to justify its occupation to its own citizens with too many body bags coming back regularly. Israel lost over 100 soldiers just from the limited ground fighting they did.

               As for Iraq now, the US will do as you say – bomb Iraq back to rubble if the Shia support Iran. Although I wouldn’t be surprised if the Shia force the US out of Iraq in an Iran war (or even before as calls for that are becoming strong in Iraq.). The US could move its Iraq troops to perhaps one of the ‘Stans if necessary or simply move them into northern Iran as part of the invasion force and supply them through Turkey or one of the ‘Stans.

               The US can’t afford to have too many troops in Iraq if they have to occupy the Iranian coast. The US doesn’t have enough ground troops to occupy two decent sized countries, especially if both countries are conducting serious-sized insurgencies against them. The insurgencies the US had to deal with in Iraq and Afghanistan between 2002 and 2006 were bad enough. Iraq and Iran will be much worse. That whole part of the Iran war will be a mess

               But then the Iran war will be a mess for the US no matter how Iraq goes. But there’s no way the US will be able to rely on just an air campaign. That’s how it will start (for some weeks or months) but since Iran will never surrender and Iran will be able to conduct serious missile operations against US troops everywhere in the Middle East as well as closing the Straits, the US will eventually have to try to occupy at least part of Iran, most likely the coast. That’s when it will turn into a mess, in Iran, in Iraq and possibly elsewhere where there are Shia.

               Air wars don’t work. Israel discovered that in 2006, and NATO discovered that in Serbia where over 90% of the Serb forces remained intact despite a heavy air campaign. You can bomb civilian infrastructure to rubble but the enemy military remains functional.

               The US will do as you say – attempt an air campaign because of the difficulty of occupying even part of Iran – but in the end, they will have to do some level of occupation. Either that or give up after just bombing the civilian infrastructure in Iran – which will do the US or Israel no good at all. Israel wants Iran beaten to surrender or destruction. An air war won’t do that.

            4. “Air wars don’t work”…don’t work for what purpose? US militancy is organized crime. Organized crime has used destruction of civilian assets to further their protection rackets since their inception. It’s what they do. You don’t pay, your windows are broken, your vehicles burn or explode. Of course it’s effective. It just doesn’t happen to you personally. How many Middle East countries lay in rubble ? To what purpose? The rubbling is the purpose. You are projecting 20th century war on to 21st century terrain. Of course Israel or the US don’t care to occupy territory, they offer nothing but death and destruction to the people who live there.

            5. We’ll have to agree to disagree. My prediction remains that the US will join Israel in attacking Lebanon and this will be done before any Iran war occurs. Israel will occupy Southern Lebanon for control of their water and to try to keep Hezbollah out of Southern Lebanon. The US will not occupy a part of Lebanon (except temporarily).

               The US will try to occupy the shores of Iran to keep the Straits open after a period of air war alone. They will fail at that and will eventually be forced to withdraw. The US will not attempt to occupy all of Iran because Iran is too big. In that, you are correct.

            6. A note on the weaponization of refugees….Nazi Germany showed how refugees could be herded to impede enemy ground reaction. Today, US militancy counts on refugees to produce desirable outcomes. They are part of the plan. When the second Iraq war came, Syria was also in line for regime change. Tho there was no plan to aid Iraqi citizens, the US herded millions into Syria to overwhelm infrastructure there, leading to severe poverty and social unrest. “ISIS” was a predictable outcome to the Iraq war. Harsh living conditions in Syria also played well into propaganda showing how horrible Assad was to his own people. We see this playing out in Venezuela, and Central America today. These refugees, reaching Europe and the US have the predictable result of creating the successful anti immigration nationalist movements. Movements that generally support further militant investment. The enemies of peace are a clever, dangerous lot, not to be underestimated.

8. And on a grammatical note, English speakers don’t use phrases like “very high confidence.” They’d say “very high level of confidence” or “a great deal of confidence.” And he’s a vice admiral?

9. Exactly … and Saddam had nukes.

   1. He did. Just cause we couldn’t find them don’t mean he didn’t have any.

      🙂

      1. Duh

         1. Doh, dah

10. Yup, that Iran was involved is a slam dunk

11. Don’t they get it? You can’t cry wolf every year. Eventually when the real thing happens it’ll be too late.

Comments are closed.