Friday, June 14, 2019

Buster Keaton outtake

"US CENTCOM releases grainy video of boat to accuse Iran of attacks".  Tweet (Julian Charles):
"Pompeo establishes Iranian responsibility with Buster Keston outtake"
Tweet (Matthew Cooper):
"Gulf of Trumpkin"
So ridiculously suspicious even CNN (!), famous, even by (((media))) standards, for its rigorous commitment to lying, can't swallow it:  "Iran FM: "Suspicious Doesn't Begin To Describe" Attack On Japanese Tanker During Abe's State Visit" (Durden).

I'm sure Bolton had a hand in this attack too:  "JOHN KIRIAKOU: Bolton’s Long Goodbye" (Kiriakou).

"Convenient "Tanker Attacks" as US Seeks War with Iran" (Cartalucci) (on one-issue-guy Haim's 'dialectic' when he's not tied up writing jokes for The Onion; my emphasis in red):
"All of this amounts to a renewed push toward a more direct conflict between the United States and Iran after years of proxy war in Syria Washington-backed forces have decisively lost.

It is also a continuation of long-standing US foreign policy regarding Iran put into motion over a decade ago and carried out by each respective presidency since.

Continued sanctions and the elimination of waivers are part of Washington's unilateral withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or the "Iran Nuclear Deal." The deal was signed in 2015 with the US withdrawing in 2018.

While the decision is portrayed as political differences between former US President Barack Obama and current US President Donald Trump - in reality - the plan's proposal, signing, and then withdrawal from by the US was planned in detail as early as 2009 as a means of justifying long sought-after war with Iran.

In their 2009 paper, "Which Path to Persia?: Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran" (PDF), the corporate-financier funded Brookings Institution would first admit the complications of US-led military aggression against Iran (emphasis added): 

...any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. 
The paper then lays out how the US could appear to the world as a peacemaker and depict Iran's betrayal of a "very good deal" as the pretext for an otherwise reluctant US military response (emphasis added): 
The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offerone so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.
And from 2009 onward, this is precisely what the United States set out to achieve. 

First with President Obama's signing of the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal, up to and including President Trump's attempts to backtrack from it based on fabricated claims Iran failed to honor the agreement.  

The 2009 policy paper also discussed "goading" Iran into war, claiming (emphasis added):
With provocation, the international diplomatic and domestic political requirements of an invasion [of Iran] would be mitigated, and the more outrageous the Iranian provocation (and the less that the United States is seen to be goading Iran), the more these challenges would be diminished. In the absence of a sufficiently horrific provocation, meeting these requirements would be daunting.
Unmentioned directly, but also an obvious method for achieving Washington's goal of provoking war with Iran would be the US simply staging an "Iranian provocation" itself.

As the US had done in Vietnam following the Gulf of Tonkin incident, or US fabrications regardings "weapons of mass destruction" Washington claimed Iraq held in its possession, the US has a clear track record of not just simply provoking provocations, but staging them itself.

The Brookings paper even admits to the unlikelihood of Iran falling into Washington's trap, lamenting (emphasis added): is certainly the case that if Washington sought such a provocation, it could take actions that might make it more likely that Tehran would do so (although being too obvious about this could nullify the provocation). However, since it would be up to Iran to make the provocative move, which Iran has been wary of doing most times in the past, the United States would never know for sure when it would get the requisite Iranian provocation. In fact, it might never come at all.

The alleged sabotaging of oil tankers off the shore of the UAE in May and now additional "attacks" this month could be the beginning of a series of staged provocations aimed at leveraging the recent listing of the IRGC as a "terrorist organization" coupled with increased economic pressure as a result of US sanctions re-initiated after the US' own withdrawal from the Iran Deal.
The spike in oil prices caused by this sort of attack is also very helpful to the Saudis, who are struggling to make ends meet with the current per barrel price of oil.

This is very good:  "Trump Thinks US Oil Is His Strength When It's His Achilles' Heel" (Luongo).  Note that the prices that are causing the Saudis problems - and they are supposed to make the problems worse by upping production to take the place of the sanctioned oil! - are caused by the completely bank-driven over-production of shale oil (the production is now entirely to allow the banks to keep the loans as current on their books, for otherwise there is a total failure of the US banking system).  The entire Federal Reserve/shale oil scam/Sanctions For The Jews clusterfuck that Trump has created - with the bonus that Trump has broken his promises so many times that nobody trusts him any more - is inevitably going to blow up, with Trump now simply trying to stretch the inevitable long enough so the explosion occurs after the next election.

"Russia is Calling Trump’s Bluff on Iran and Syria, and Winning Big" (Erlich).  Note, above, that Putin is happy producing cheap oil, but cheap oil for the Saudis means the heads of the Saudi royals are soon on pikes.

The Houthis' aim is getting better:  "Saudis Release Dramatic Video Of "Iran-Ordered" Houthi Missile Attack On Airport Terminal" (Durden). "Houthi missile attack on Saudi Arabia's Abha airport wounds 26".  It still looks like this kind of thing is the only possible hope to stopping the psycho MbS/MbZ attacks on Yemen.

"Why Hondurans set fire to the US embassy" (Rubinstein).  Killary!

"Answering the Jewish ‘Defenses’ of Canary Mission".  "Munk School of Global Affairs feeds anti-Iran propaganda" (Engler).  "Inside Israel’s million dollar troll army" (Winstanley).  Your career awaits in the exciting new field of Khazar apologetics!

The classic lie about Assad, repeated over and over and over in Zionist (((media sources))), from a source probably funded by Qatar, and reprinted by Cole, who knows better:  "War Crimes: Syria’s Assad has Systematically Targeted Hospitals as a Battle Tactic" (Al-Ghazal). This is part of the new campaign being rolled out of the  'greatest hits' of recent Khazar anti-Syrian PR:  "US Propaganda Blitz Ahead of Idlib's Liberation " (Cartalucci).

More 'dialectic' to confuse the farm animals:  "J Street — and Bernie Sanders — are loyal to the ‘democratic and Jewish homeland’ contradiction" (Solomon).  Ironic to see this tactic criticized at Mondoweiss, where employing the tactic of sorting out pretend Khazar squabbling is its raison d'être.

India's supremacist nationalism is already leading to a series of very bad and backward-looking choices which don't portend well for its future:  "India Now Supports Israel at the UN against Palestine. Are They Allies?" (Korybko).  Also, lock-step with the Khazar PR line on 'terrorism':  "India’s Proposal For A Global “Terrorism” Conference Will Probably Backfire"  (Korybko).

What happens when the rule of a 'stable genius' is over, and the real crazies get into power (a serious question):  "What Comes After Trump – World War III?" (Pieraccini).  If you think it is bad now . . .

It's just a big metaphor for a rapidly collapsing empire: "F-35 Program Is "F***ed Up", Puts American Pilots In Severe Dogfight Disadvantage" (Durden). AlsoAnd.

"RAY McGOVERN: DOJ Bloodhounds on the Scent of John Brennan".

'Nice' anti-vaxxers in Albany.

Rough days for Trudeau, but he has some weapons not available to the Conservatives:  "Trudeau says Liberals are committed to launching a national pharmacare plan to ensure drug coverage for Canadians" (Campion-Smith/Boutilier).

I'm sure Orwell would get a laugh out of how orwellian it is that the prize for excellence in retyping various government PR releases is named after him!:  "Orwell Prize: Who Made the Cut"

"Clown World Maxes Out: Facebook Bans “Honk” Meme!" (Daily Stormer).
blog comments powered by Disqus