Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion

Is the US planting the seeds for an invasion of Iran? I strongly suspect it is.

Where's the concrete evidence linking Iran to attacks on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman?

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says "additional proof will be forthcoming".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...

Lordy, haven't we been here before?

Additional proof will be forthcoming as soon as we make it up.

Between Venezuela and Iran, the hawks are working overtime. One small mercy is they've been really ham-handed about it.

Another false flag? At least Mr. Trump does not want to go to war with Iran or Russia.

``Laurie wrote: "Another false flag? At least Mr. Trump does not want to go to war with Iran or Russia."

Jury's still out on that I suspect, Laurie.

Jim wrote: "Additional proof will be forthcoming as soon as we make it up."

For the sake of the world, I wish I could say that sounded unrealistic or an exaggeration...But that's about where it's at with post-WW2 warfare: decide on which land to invade first, then find or create evidence to justify the invasion later.

Iran has been always a big pain in the ass (sorry) of the US and its allies, Iran has to be stopped ASAP.
The US has to fill its place in the Meddle east before Russia / China fill it .
Saudi Arabia and all other GCC countries (except Qatar which backing Iran) have suffered from Iran / Iran backed militia and willing to dealing with and support the US actions against IRAN.

U.N. OFFICIALS: U.S. PLANNING A 'TACTICAL ASSAULT' IN IRAN https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Ira...
The military action under consideration would be an aerial bombardment of an Iranian facility linked to its nuclear program, the officials further claimed.

عبدالله wrote: "Iran has been always a big pain in the ass (sorry) of the US and its allies, Iran has to be stopped ASAP.
The US has to fill its place in the Meddle east before Russia / China fill it .
Saudi Ara..."

Why trust the Saudis, or Americans, any more than Iranians?

Gulf of Oman Attack = Gulf of Tonkin 2.0?

Contradicting Trump Claim of Iranian Mine Attack, Owner of Japanese Oil Tanker Says 'Flying Object' Likely Caused Explosions https://www.commondreams.org/news/201...

Will A False-Flag Iran War Cause A Financial Crisis? https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-0...

Selected Articles: Gulf of Oman Attack: False Flag Towards Iran War? https://www.globalresearch.ca/selecte...

Iain wrote: "It was set in stone after the 'dodgy' Axis of Evil speech . . . . I say dodgy, because the Iranian's were at first giving the U.S. logistical help in the region, then they suddenly turned . . . .

That led to Al Baghdadi entering the frame and here we are . . .


Yup.

Iain wrote: "This wouldn't be a walkover like Iraq...."

Remember "The Elite Republican Guard" in Iraq? they were built up even more than Iran is being built up now... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eqP1...

That's for informing me about Iranian SuperSoldiersTM :)

I have a friend who is Irani so I have a lot of sympathy for the regular people of Iran. There's a huge difference between the people and their leadership. The conservative Shiites basically own everything and the government has to cater to what they want. (Kind of like how western governments cater to plutocrats.) The average Iranian would be Baha'i but has to be Muslim or they can't travel, attend school, get a job, etc.

A US war with Iran looms. Don’t for one second think that it is justified https://www.theguardian.com/commentis...
"Trump’s allies will try to paint Iran as a threat, as they did with Iraq. We must not fall into step with their prefab bloodlust"

For me, the thought that Iran hit those ships makes far less sense than some lot of Sunnis want to goad the US into dealing with Iran.

I am with Iain on this. If they want to fight in Iran, take plenty of body bags. Sure, the US can bomb Iran anywhere they like, although there is still the possibility of cost. The US is highly likely to suffer from some missile defences. Further, Iran probably doesn't have the problem Iraq had, where they had bought French missiles, and France gave the US codes to make them useless. The Russians and Chinese might well like to test out their missiles in real use.

Also, Iran could close the gulf, and it has missiles that could turn the Saudi oil fields into fire. Finally, Iran is not so good for the US mechanised war. The US has made a nuisance of itself in Afghanistan, but it hasn't won, and Iran would be a lot worse than there, if for no other reason than it is a lot bigger and its many more soldiers a lot better trained.

They each would, wouldn't they? But the drone was probably spying.

Do you think Iran might return what's left of the drone this time? And could they deliver it back to the Pentagon in a nice package this time to make up for 2011?

p.s. Between the name Gulf of Tonkin (I mean Oman! sorry my mistake), claims of "proof" of "weapons of mass destruction" and supposedly superhuman Iraqi (I mean, Iranian! Sorry memory failing me) guards, and downed drones, sometimes I feel like I'm living in a military version of Groundhog Day...

Iran–U.S. RQ-170 incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2...
On 5 December 2011, an American Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) was captured by Iranian forces near the city of Kashmar in northeastern Iran. The Iranian government announced that the UAV was brought down by its cyberwarfare unit which commandeered the aircraft and safely landed it, after initial reports from Western news sources disputedly claimed that it had been "shot down".[1] The United States government initially denied the claims but later President Obama acknowledged that the downed aircraft was a US drone and requested that Iran return it.

Complaint to UN Security Council
On 9 December 2011, Iran lodged a formal complaint to the United Nations Security Council over the UAV violating its airspace. Iran's U.N. ambassador stated in the letter that "My government emphasizes that this blatant and unprovoked air violation by the United States government is tantamount to an act of hostility against the Islamic Republic of Iran in clear contravention of international law, in particular, the basic tenets of the United Nations Charter."

Goddamn!

‘You’ll soon find out’ if US will strike Iran - Trump https://www.rt.com/usa/462329-trump-i...

As to where the drone was, we have to also consider the history of lying. If you state that the more lies someone tells, the higher the probability that any given statement is a lie, then you would tend to believe the Iran version. They very seldom tell outright lies, and this current US administration (Trump, Pompeo, Bolton) are well established liars.

Couldn't miss this one.
So, the peace-loving, lofty and progressive Iran is being framed and bullied by the the US-:) Really?
Whatever happens in the Strait of Hormuz is right off the shore of Iran. Did they present any kind of explanation of what had happened? They declared that if they can not sell oil, no one in the Gulf would be able to and it looks like they follow through on their promise. Don't think they even care to conceal that they are behind the attacks, as they clearly chose to tough it out and prove that the US is a paper tiger. Of course, Russia and N. Korea are watching closely.
Nobody's gonna invade Iran. It's about knocking out their nuclear and ballistic assets. Can be done without boots on the ground with chances that Iran won't dare to retaliate or retaliate low-key. I don't think anyone wants Iran as a menace.
Whatever supreme soldiers revolutionary guards may be, they may have trouble with superior weaponry.
It's all in a good spirit. Hope you guys cherish a debate -:)

Ian wrote: "They very seldom tell outright lies..."

Forgot the nuclear dossier? Or Fordow a hidden until revealed nuclear site?

Nik wrote: "It's about knocking out their nuclear and ballistic assets. ..."

Just like it was about removing Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq (a highly dubious claim at the very least, many or even most historians/academics worldwide now say re those Iraqi WMD reports), and just like it was about defending against communist attacks that NEVER HAPPENED in Vietnam (Gulf of Tonkin Incident now historically proven to be false flag propaganda) etc etc.

At some point, even the most naive, patriotic, nationalistic mainstream media news junkies, will be forced to ask themselves "how many times can I keep believing official stories coming from the Pentagon?"

The US Empire has lost major credibility since WW2. It has simply cried wolf too many times - fewer and fewer people globally automatically believe US military reports in this era (rightly or wrongly).

I'm pleasantly surprised to see false flag attacks is no longer an underground term -- many mainstream media journalists have been raising the propaganda possibility and even referencing the numerous post WW2 false flags this week re this Iran crisis. That's at least some major progress for our society, in my opinion.

For example, the likes of the Vietnam War alone (which costs millions of lives) could have potentially been prevented if people (especially journalists) showed skepticism towards official stories coming from the military. It's up to journalists to inform the public of the history of false flags conducted by various nations worldwide to begin new wars or the sort of "military interventions" the US is now proposing in Iran...

Of course none of that means that everything coming from the military of any nation is all propaganda. Often they are telling the truth, threats from foreign powers are indeed real...sometimes.

Question is: Are "they" telling the truth re Iran this time? Or is there a dark motive to like like there was in Iraq, Vietnam etc etc...

Scepticism is a good approach. Have you heard any Iranian comment about the record where their boat removes a mine that hadn't explode? Is there another version apart from denial? When Russian troops invaded Crimea they didn't wear insignia. This was the only disguise and Putin admitted it some time later. Looks pretty much the same here on Iran's part.
Is downing a US airplane a fact admitted by Iran and US or insinuation?
Russia is also under sanctions, but we don't see it downing US planes or disrupting maritime trade.
And again from the point of view of the US: should the country preaching "death to America" be allowed to have the means to follow through?

Nik wrote: "Is downing a US airplane a fact admitted by Iran and US or insinuation?..."

Well, again, just like the all-important proven history of various nations (e.g. the US, UK, Japan, Israel, Russia, Nazi Germany etc) committing false flag attacks to be successfully blamed on other nations, we should also check out similar events in recent history in my opinion...For example, we still don't know the truth to this 2011 incident re a downed US drone over Iran...

Iran–U.S. RQ-170 incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2...

Iran's U.N. ambassador stated in the letter that "My government emphasizes that this blatant and unprovoked air violation by the United States government is tantamount to an act of hostility against the Islamic Republic of Iran in clear contravention of international law, in particular, the basic tenets of the United Nations Charter."

The US had a different version of events over that incident.

Still nobody knows exactly what happened with that drone 8 years ago.

The truth of these matters often takes years or decades to come to light.

Likewise, the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin false flag propaganda trick the US committed to hoodwink the American people to start the Vietnam War was not admitted to being a false flag until 2005 when the NSA formally admitted "there was no such attack".

Therefore, call me crazy, but given the massive amount of lies that the military industrial complex has been caught red handed for, I vote we should all be calling for no wars, bombings or "military interventions" should be allowed until most nations worldwide (and the UN) agree on such matters... Again, call me crazy, but no single nation -- whether the US, China, Russia or the UK -- should just be able to decide its own version of events to justify acts of military aggression...

The history proves nothing about the present. I suspect the top-notch US intelligence plane doesn't need to enter the airspace to spy effectively on what happens in Iran from afar. And basic physics tell me that once hit, the object falls down and if its remnants are in the sea and not on Iran's land, I kinda guess how so.
Would you really grieve if Iranian nuclear and ballistic assets were knocked out? Is the US really a bad guy here?
Trump pulled out of many treaties, but he managed to conclude new ones quite effectively be it with Mexico, Canada or elsewhere.
Iran was invited to negotiate a new deal numerous times. No other response, but belligerence

Nik wrote: "Would you really grieve if Iranian nuclear and ballistic assets were knocked out? Is the US really a bad guy here?..."

Hell Yes AND possibly.

Just like with numerous other wars of recent decades, we need more info on the latter to figure out who the bad guys and good guys are in this equation (and yes you're right history never proves anything about the present, but it often informs us greatly just as we see consistent trends re false flag attacks and other propaganda spun by military outfits of various nations to justify acts of military aggression).

And I would definitely grieve if Iranian nuclear and ballistic assets were knocked out IF it is unjustified -- as that resulted in untold retaliations, and not just from Iran. We don't know whether that could trigger WW3 or at least a huge escalation of conflict in the Middle East. Just because a regime doesn't share our values, or is a bit eccentric like North Korea, or is constantly calling for death to its enemies (but not actually attacking anyone), does not mean we should excuse potential unprovoked attacks from big bullies.

Go back the UN rules on all this.

I seem to recall the UN did not back the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Bush just did it anyway.

Imagine if small nations, and not military superpowers, just decided to do whatever they wanted like that?

But again, I'm also not saying Iran is innocent here. For all I know they could be planning to attack everyone and anyone...I mean, that'd be suicidal on their behalf, but maybe they've all gone insane and really want to attempt to begin WW3.

In which case the US and her allies would be the good guys.

But not actually attacking anyone? That's a false statement. Didn't just today they attacked the US airplane? They mostly use proxies - hisbollah, Iraq Shiite militias and sometimes directly. I'm a big believer in 'pre-emptive'. You can't have rogue states, who tag you as an enemy, upgrade their capabilities to be able to inflict you damage.
Nuclear Iran, means nuclear Saudi Arabia. Different values shouldn't entail calls for distraction. How can you know that nuclear armed Iran with ballistic missiles won't try to destroy 'the evil America' for which death they call?

Ah, and hardly see scenarios for WW3, not in the context of Iran at least

Nik wrote: "The history proves nothing about the present. I suspect the top-notch US intelligence plane doesn't need to enter the airspace to spy effectively on what happens in Iran from afar. And basic physic..."

"The history proves nothing about the present."
Really, Nik?
History sets precedents and patterns of behavior, surely...

Can you decide basing on the history who attacked the tankers?

Nik wrote: "But not actually attacking anyone? That's a false statement. Didn't just today they attacked the US airplane? They mostly use proxies - hisbollah, Iraq Shiite militias and sometimes directly. I'm a..."

It appears you're missing some subtleties here, Nik.

I clearly stated Iran may have attacked the drone as officially reported by the Pentagon -- in which case they deserve to be disciplined and we cannot ignore such acts of aggression. (as would any nation that does such things like attacking ships or planes without reason)

However, I also said it could be yet more false flag operations (you understand what false flag attacks mean, I assume?)....In which case, Iran would be currently being blamed for things they did not do...in which case they would not have not actually attacked anyone in this instance...

I am not generally a believer in pre-emptive strikes. That's usually an excuse to justify various unnecessary military "interventions" which are ultimately just fancy "illegal invasions" or "illegal military attacks". (Did somebody say Iraq?!)

If I'm reading correctly between the lines, I do think an Israeli-centric viewpoint could possibly be the difference here? Israel is very vulnerable and I'm aware Iran states it wants to attack her more than anyone else. I'm not unsympathetic to the position Israelis are in. I can see why Israelis would indeed feel MUCH safer if Iran's nuclear capabilities were taken out. If I were an Israeli, or even living within Israel's borders, I am sure I would probably want that too.

BUT doing what's right for Israel could (potentially) be wrong for the world in some instances or even many instances. And eventually wrong for Israel too, because we need to think where all these "pre-emptive" military attacks lead to...There are about 20-30 countries worldwide where you could formulate various reasons as to why pre-emptive military strikes could be justifiable. What sort of a world would we end up in if we allowed wars to be begun BEFORE loud-mouthed enemies actually attack us?

And where do all these bizarre US military wars/strikes lead to? Does anybody even understand what the recent bombings or invasions of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, etc etc were even about? Why were they "necessary" wars/military strikes? How do they relate to the "national security" of the US?

Thanks for presenting Israeli point of view. And I can assure you that if Iran gets closer to the nukes, we'll act, because Iran is an existential threat to us. Like Israel regularly does in Syria wiping out Iranian forces there.
Let me deliver, the Australian/NZ perspective in return -:) Countries that efficiently wiped out its indigenous population, now threatened by no one and having no global ambitions would of course argue for an eternal peace and no pre-emptive strikes, because they are the last to suffer if nuclear Iran attacked anyone.
Pre-emotive strikes lead to disabling your enemy. Just that. Does Israel want or plan to invade Iran? No. Does US? No. It's just about removing the threats. What does Iran do deescalate tensions? Nothing. Instead, it's mounting tensions daily.
Can you know it's a false flag? No. You can be skeptical, which is fine-:)

This discussion is certainly getting interesting. Nik is now the expert in Australian/NZ perspectives ??? Anyway, while I would hardly claim to offer the NZ perspective, the shooting down of the drone is interesting. There are two questions: where was it when it was shot down, and where had it been? The US is strangely quiet on that last point, so I suspect that means it was over Iran or Iranian territory at some point, which makes it a legitimate target. Nik's point that once hit an object falls down. yes, but not straight down. It conserves its lateral momentum together with what was imparted from the explosion, less momentum lost to air friction.

Nik wrote: "Would you really grieve if Iranian nuclear and ballistic assets were knocked out?" Well, probably not exactly go into a grieving process. But this assumes that Iran has nuclear assets. Iran claims its uranium has only gone into peaceful purposes. Meanwhile, there was a report that the US was to sell Saudis nuclear technology. Somewhere, deep down, truth is lurking, but where? I have no idea whether Iran has nuclear weapons. I am reasonably confident that Israel has.

My thoughts on the tanker strike are here: https://wordpress.com/post/ianmillerb...
To summarise, I don't think you can tell who did it because the information is too slight, but the odds to me favour someone who wants to goad the US into striking Iran.

As for a pre-emptive strike, this is exactly what the US likes to do. Bomb someone, make them cower to superior power, give the US what it wants, and all will be well. Unfortunately, that is not the case in practice. You can't just keep bombing people without consequences. Nik says NZ would be the last to suffer. Actually, most of our oil comes from the Gulf, and you don't need a nuclear exchange to close down the Gulf, so our economy would take a huge hit. So, probably would Japan and Europe. China can probably get supplies from Russia and the US is busy fracking. There will be serious economic consequences elsewhere.

Nik wrote: "Let me deliver, the Australian/NZ perspective in return -:) Countries that efficiently wiped out its indigenous population, now threatened by no one and having no global ambitions would of course argue for an eternal peace and no pre-emptive strikes, because they are the last to suffer if nuclear Iran attacked anyone. ..."

I thought you said you're not a fan of bringing history in to prove anything in the present? Now you're referencing centuries-old sins of the British Empire on this topic of Iran??
FYI, NZ population is about 20% indigenous, that must've been an unusual genocide! Again, not to defend the British Empire's ugly tactics toward the indigenous populations, but just correcting little errors in the past Soviet or Ukrainian educational system ;)

Regardless, I would've thought a 21st Century nuclear war would great injure or completely destroy the entire planet not just one little region like the ME? Not sure it'd be remotely isolated like Hiroshima, I think most agree if nuclear war every breaks out we all go down together... Possibly even all at once, according to predictions I've heard.

Can you know this Iran Crisis is NOT a false flag? No. You can if you wish always automatically believe official stories from the military, and maybe 50% of the time you'll be correct...

Meanwhile, for the flip side of this whole debate...

Let Iran have its nuclear weapons – it would make the world safer for us all https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...

Trump: ‘Hard To Believe’ Iran Drone Downing ‘Intentional’ https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisettev...

James, "Let Iran have its nuclear weapons – it would make the world safer for us all" Talk about leading with your chin as far as Nik is concerned :-)

Of course downing the drone was intentional. What surprised me was it cost $220 mil.

Ian wrote: "Talk about leading with your chin as far as Nik is concerned :-) ..."

C'mon now Ian...we don't wanna start an Israeli-Down Under war here. Please! This is serious stuff! (we need to at least come up with new wars and pre-emptive strikes that can be lucrative for the Empire)

Well this is getting fun.

I don't think that there currently is the public will for an invasion of Iran. We turned down sending troops to Syria flat, and that was with the Press screaming how it was damned near a holy cause. Most likely we'll just look the other way while Israel "defends" itself. We've done it before, and this time the Iranians would be amazed at how accurate the Israeli targeting is. You could swear that those Israelis had been watching Iran with advanced satellite and signals assets for years ahead of their attack.

OK, James, I'll try to be serious. Really I will. Well . . .

Actually, there is no real evidence that I know of that Iran has nuclear weapons, and if it did, it would be very stupid for it to use them first. But by asserting that Iran is a threat, the US manages to sell more and more weapons to the Saudis. The Trump administration, in my view, bases its whole foreign policy on dollars, and it sees Iran as (a) a nuisance, and (b) something to keep the Saudis buying.

I doubt the US can pacify Iran by bombing. It is either boots on the ground, and a lot of them, or diplomacy, and I feel that Trump, by pulling out of the nuclear agreement, and the utterances of the likes of Bolton, that makes this a diplomatic solution lot more difficult.

I would not be the slightest surprised if China was buying stuff from Iran, nor selling stuff. China has no interest in US sanctions, the Chinese basically dislike the current US government, and China is a bit big to just push around. My view is this situation will merely get worse because neither side will back down.

The world safer with Iran having nukes? I guess all those who signed a nuclear deal with Iran believe and declare otherwise. The only difference- is which way it should be achieved.
Does a peace loving Iran do everything it can to deescalate the tensions? It does everything to mount them further. The US was very restrained so far, and maybe it even encourages the Iranians. Abe was reported to have a message from Trump, which Khomeini just refused to hear/receive. This certainly adds to an atmosphere of concord. Did Iran care to interpret the filmed removal of limpet mine?
If Iran is behind tankers' attack and the plane was hit over international waters, does it necessitate a response in your opinion?
And the chances are that there might still be no US response. They don't want an armed conflict. And Iran may be just using this unwillingness to the fullest. Obama also said that using chemical weapons would be a red line in Syria, but did nothing when it happened.
Yeah, larger conflicts can spark from originally minor events. But a surgical operation may achieve its target without a broader response. Ferdinand is a nice example, but you may want to look at knocking out of the Iraqi reactor or Syrian one at the time, which entailed no response whatsoever. China or Russia are unlikely to intervene on Iran's behalf. What for?

And just as we speak, the reports are that the US military response was aborted in the last minute: https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.c...
So all good. Tankers can cruise, planes fly, beers pulled out of the fridge, no war just rhetoric-:)

You forgot "nuke hype" can continue in your beer drinking list, Nik.

And Iain, what does M.A.D. stand for? And are we mad or should we become mad?

Yeah, should probably stock up on beers or have a jet fueled to reach Australia if and when shit hits the fan-:)

The US was restrained, by imposing crippling sanctions? By pulling out of an agreement it had signed a year before for no good reason, just AFTER Iran had complied with its obligations? Nik, you still have to offer evidence that Iran has nukes.

The question is not "If Iran is behind the tanker attacks" because according to John Bolton, Iran is DEFINITELY behind them. No evidence, and as I pointed out in the blog, leaving aside a really weird third order interpretation, it makes little or no sense for Iran t have mined a Japanese ship right when Japan was offering to try and help alleviate the sanctions. Why do that?

And why should Iran interpret that film? And how do you know it didn't? Are you monitoring Iranian TV?

Why did bombing Iraq get no response? Because the Iraqis had no mechanism to do it. When you say a surgical strike will achieve an objective, what objective? And how do you know Iran will do nothing? I am sure Bolton would love to go to war, but I note Bolton was not exactly keen on military service when he was eligible.

Ian wrote: "The US was restrained, by imposing crippling sanctions? By pulling out of an agreement it had signed a year before for no good reason, just AFTER Iran had complied with its obligations? Nik, you still have to offer evidence that Iran has nukes..."

Imposing economic sanctions is not tantamount to armed aggression. It's not a must to trade with anyone. The sanctions were there before until Obama lifted them believing in the deal. Trump didn't like the deal and pulled out. All perfectly legit. He pulled out from a deal with Canada and Mexico too and probably dozens of others, but I didn't see Canadian or Mexican belligerence.
I hope and as far as I understand that's the assumption of the intelligence community that Iran doesn't have nukes, but it does have means and aspiration to achieve them, therefore stopping them from doing so before they succeed is crucial.
You dismiss Iran's actions in mounting the tensions with the US, which shows remarkable restraint. Why? I don't see how the US is the bad guy at all in this situation. Iran declared that if they can't trade oil, nobody in the Gulf would and they follow through on this point slowly escalating tensions. If Iran interpreted the record, the media would've reported it at all possible angles. No worries.
Iran rejects diplomacy, offered by the States numerous times. If they resort to the use military means, should the US choke? I don't think so. But Trump will decide (and then maybe change his mind).
Would you feel safer with Iran and Saudis having nukes?

Ian wrote: "The US was restrained, by imposing crippling sanctions? By pulling out of an agreement it had signed a year before for no good reason, just AFTER Iran had complied with its obligations? Nik, you still have to offer evidence that Iran has nukes.

The question is not "If Iran is behind the tanker attacks" because according to John Bolton, Iran is DEFINITELY behind them. No evidence, and as I pointed out in the blog, leaving aside a really weird third order interpretation, it makes little or no sense for Iran t have mined a Japanese ship right when Japan was offering to try and help alleviate the sanctions. Why do that?

And why should Iran interpret that film? And how do you know it didn't? Are you monitoring Iranian TV?...."

Those are all brilliant questions.... To which none of us here know the answers! (that's why I'm neutral and on the fence and think a "wait and see" approach would be prudent - I don't support Iran at all - Even if they don't actually have nukes, Iranian leaders are mostly anti-Semitic assholes -- just like the most hardcore warmongers in the US and Israel are assholes in their own right).

Imagine if more people had asked similar questions to you about the reported (and now most likely fictional) WMDs in Iraq?
(that's why I think now that the formerly underground term/concept "false flags" going mainstream bodes well as necessary skepticism to official military stories is FINALLY increasing worldwide).

But listen Ian, get with Trump's program! We need more wars as they are a fantastic economic boost. Failing that we need military strikes or something to do with all our military hardware. The $220 US spy drone is case in point. We gotta find ways to use all our expensive war toys, whether it's bombing Syria, Yemen or Iran, it doesn't really matter. And if we can do these strikes before the election that might help Trumpy-boy get another 4 years -- and remember, he already TOLD us that if he doesn't get re-elected the US economy will slide into a depression, remember...

$$ = evidence

Hey, we are all focused on the US potentially circumventing UN permission (as they did with Iraq) and just bombing Iran, BUT according to this report it appears we may be overlooking Israel? Could they just go ahead without any allies????

Israel could strike first as tensions with Iran flare https://theconversation.com/israel-co...

The U.S. is not the only country considering a military response in Iran.

“Israel will not allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons,” said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on June 17. Netanyahu also said Iran must be punished for violating the nuclear agreement.

Israel, which has faced threats to its national security since its founding as a Jewish homeland in the Middle East in 1948, is known to take aggressive, preventive action to protect itself – including by launching preemptive strikes on neighboring nations it perceives as threatening.

If international relations with Iran grow more volatile, Israel could take dramatic, unilateral action against its neighbor and longtime adversary.

p.s. What I don't understand is Netanyahu said in that recent article that "Israel will not allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons.” And yet US military sources are either telling (or heavily implying to) American/Western populations via the media that Iran has active nukes ready to strike now... I understand it's a technical difference, I understand Iran has violated nuclear agreement and could soon have active nuclear weapons, BUT I think it's always this subtle difference with regimes like this that should be reported.

For example, I posted reports from Russian media quoting senior Russian military leaders who categorically said North Korea does not have nuclear capabilities (despite all the Western reports to the contrary). I'm not saying the Russians are right, but it seems there needs to be much more debate in the media on the difference between having a vague nuclear program and actually having nukes ready to strike. That was also the case with Iraq, yet I would wager if you asked the average person in the street they would have assumed that they actually had nukes ready (or almost ready) to fire off anywhere, anytime.

And therefore news headlines get reduced to sensationalist statements like 'Iran Could Nuke Israel!"

Being a chemist, Ian, why do you doubt Iran has legitimate nuclear capabilities?

James wrote: "Hey, we are all focused on the US potentially circumventing UN permission (as they did with Iraq) and just bombing Iran..."

That's a clear misrepresentation here. You don't need a UN permission to defend yourself. And it's not just bombing Iran. Your plane was downed in the international airspace - you can retaliate no questions asked or permissions required.

James wrote: "If international relations with Iran grow more volatile, Israel could take dramatic, unilateral action against its neighbor and longtime adversary...."

Sure, it was on the cards in the past and may return again. Some argue that Israel can not afford a risk of having a nuclear armed Iran. It's an existential threat.
It would be hard to repeat the success of Operation Opera: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operati... , but it might be attempted.
This hardly depends on volatile international relations, but rather on the progress Iran makes on its weapon grade enrichment.

Okay, yeah I read about Operation Opera in that other article above. But thanks for explaining the Israeli angle, Nik.

I'm honestly not sure what's going on between Iran - Israel - US - UK - Saudi etc (don't know who to trust more)

All are masters of propaganda and all have their own agendas.

I do believe a lot of everyday people worldwide feel similar to me -- so many lies have been told on all sides that trust has been betrayed...

It raises a good question: Who can we trust anymore in the world of journalism?