Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
FALSE FLAG OPERATIONS
>
Another false flag with Iran?
Also, what's the angle with Japan???Why attack a Japanese ship in the Gulf of Oman and not an American or Israeli vessel?
Japan seems pretty neutral these days, so that makes little sense.
And why isn't it being reported that the Japanese captain said it was a flying object that hit the ship and not an Iranian mine as per US reports?
James wrote: "It raises a good question: Who can we trust anymore in the world of journalism? ..."Probably only a bouquet of sources, plus voices on the ground, but even then the specific picture or events may remain inconclusive ...
So would a Russian-backed Iran potentially be a sleeping giant you wouldn't want to awaken?
Iain wrote: "The other interesting dynamic in all of this, is Russia's reluctance to sell the Iranians the S-400 citing that it would lead to further tensions in the region, especially with Israel and Saudi Arabia. ..."I believe the best scenario for both US and Russia is that we never know the answer what's better: US war planes or Russian air defense systems. In this case both F35s and S400 can sell rather well. There are supposedly S300 or even S400 stationed and maybe operational in Syria, but they are silent when Israeli air-force goes after Iranian assets there.
On top of that, Russia and Iran as much as they are allies in Syria campaign, they are competitors and vie for supremacy there.
Oh okay.Iain, why did Putin laugh at the suggestion that Iran would ever go on the offensive? (the video you posted of Putin has been taken down or is no longer available it says...)
Iain wrote: "Their threat capability in terms of missiles and air power is over-rated. ..."That was my initial thought, but you and others in this thread know much more about Iran than me.
Would be helpful if some Iranians could add their thoughts into the group. We probably have a 100 or more Persians in this group, but so far they ain't talking.
In fact, an Iranian working in a nuclear facility and posting in this thread would be enlightening!!!
An understanding btw Russia & Israel under which Israel is 'allowed' to go after Iranian targets in Syria. However, those systems may soon pass to Syrian crews and the situ may change
IRAN CRISIS: HAVE WE LEARNED NOTHING FROM THE IRAQ WAR? https://theintercept.com/2019/06/20/i...CALLS FOR MILITARY ACTION against Iran grew louder this week in response to the Trump administration’s claims that the Islamic Republic was responsible for attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman. Many analysts and politicians, both in the U.S. and abroad, expressed skepticism of those claims. But the U.S. media appears to be falling into a familiar pattern, providing a sympathetic platform for the administration without fundamentally questioning its premises. What can we learn from the last push for a war in the Middle East 17 years ago? Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell during the run-up to the Iraq War, joins Mehdi Hasan to discuss the lessons of recent history.
Lawrence Wilkerson: The credibility of the United States on intelligence is really low right now. If that intelligence is going to cause U.S. forces to die and bleed in combat, the U.S. to deploy military force, I’m going to be very skeptical of that intelligence. Very skeptical.
https://theintercept.com/2019/06/20/i...
Watch "The REAL reason the U.S. is picking a fight with Iran" on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTqBE...
Don't forget that Iran still denies attacking the tanker in the Gulf of Oman (and that's where the possible Gulf of Tonkin-style false flag comes in) https://www.npr.org/2019/06/14/732619...
'ello 'ello...look which country is on this recent list...Top 5 countries opting to ditch US dollar & the reasons behind their move https://www.rt.com/business/447915-to...
Iran
A triumphant return of Iran to the global trading arena did not last long. Shortly after winning the US presidential election, Donald Trump opted to withdraw from the 2015 nuclear deal signed between Tehran and a group of nations, including the UK, US, France, Germany, Russia, China, and the EU.
The oil-rich nation has once again become a target for severe sanctions resumed by Washington, which has also threatened to introduce penalties against any countries that would violate the embargo. The punitive measures banned business deals with the Islamic Republic and cracked down on the country's oil industry.
Sanctions have forced Tehran to look for alternatives to the US dollar as payment for its oil exports. Iran clinched a deal for oil settlements with India using the Indian rupee. It also negotiated a barter deal with neighboring Iraq. The partners are also planning to use the Iraqi dinar for mutual transactions to reduce reliance on the US dollar amid banking problems connected to US sanctions.
The major factor in maintaining the petro-dollar has always been our alliance with the Saudis. We'll drone strike weddings to keep the Saudis happy. Which country in the region is most threatened by Iran? Could it be a Sunni monarchy with a history of repressing shiites?
Despite what you all try to allege here, the chain of events shows that the last thing the US wants is the armed conflict with Iran.
Just got a reply from a friend who is a veteran agent in the intelligence community, but now retired. He replied to questions I asked him via email about the Iran crisis (and hopefully he won't mind me posting it here anonymously):The Iran and oil tanker affair?
Total BS false flag for various reasons.
Tactically;
The so called Iranian boat alongside the tanker certainly was NOT planting a mine, neither was it removing a mine, why remove what you have placed?
The small boat was packed with people, certainly not a covert commando raid which is normally 4 people in a small Zodiac boat.
The small boat was taking OFF crew members of the tanker! Even the Captain has verified this!
The 2 holes in the side were caused by a flying object/rocket/limited missile.
The US administration is determined to overthrow Iran but they certainly have egg on their faces over this as they also have over Venezuela!
Trump and his idiots around him would be better running a comedy show than a govt.
One of the UK's top generals has stated categorically it was a false flag!
Israel or USA!
Trump states he has evidence and holds up one page of paper!
Unfortunately it could have caused yet another ME war.
Which could have even involved Russia...
What an enlightening opinion! Now we know another one
Go to bed and next morning find many questions? Aaargh.Anyway, Nik "Imposing economic sanctions is not tantamount to armed aggression" No it is not "Armed aggression" but stopping a nation from carrying out perfectly legal activities is also an act of war. You say Trump withdrawing from the deal was legitimate, but then turn around and say Iran rejects diplomacy. Not sure it does, but why should it negotiate with Trump if Trump does not honour deals? What would a negotiation achieve if you know the other side has no interest in honouring its side of the agreement? If it is imperative to stop Iran from getting nukes (and I agree it is) why pull out of the agreement? The Iranian nuclear industry was being monitored by international inspectors, and they all agreed that Iran was honouring its side of the agreement. If it were that imperative why not stick with that, and then try more peaceful negotiations to achieve more?
James: Get with Trump's program - it will be good for us. You may be interested in Joint Publication 3-72, which was made public and promptly withdrawn. According to
https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2019/06...
it contained “Using nuclear weapons could create conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic stability,” according to one Strangelovian passage in the publication. “Specifically, the use of a nuclear weapon will fundamentally change the scope of a battle and create conditions that affect how commanders will prevail in conflict.” So there - get ready for annihilation because while the US commanders might think they can use tactical nukes with impunity, Russia might think that its only option would be to let go the really big ones.
James, you asked why do I think Iran has not got nukes? Because the international inspectors reported no nukes, and no weapons grade uranium was known to be produced. The second issue is even if they could make something that would detonate, delivery remains a problem. There is no evidence they have the ability to reduce the size to something that will store well, be robust enough to move around, be able to be placed on a missile, and detonate on delivery. And before we all scoff at international inspectors, I had vague contact with one from Iraq, and he gave firm reasons why there were no WMD. The reasons were all validated.
The statement in the link that 150 casualties is too specific is ridiculous. 150 is rounding that means, substantially more than 100, and substantially less than 200. The statement that Bolton is filtering information is probably right. Bolton will say wants what Bolton wants.
Ian wrote: "James, you asked why do I think Iran has not got nukes? Because the international inspectors reported no nukes, and no weapons grade uranium was known to be produced. The second issue is even if they could make something that would detonate, delivery remains a problem. There is no evidence they have the ability to reduce the size to something that will store well, be robust enough to move around, be able to be placed on a missile, and detonate on delivery. And before we all scoff at international inspectors, I had vague contact with one from Iraq, and he gave firm reasons why there were no WMD. The reasons were all validated. ..."Thanks that's all enlightening info and pretty much what I expected.
So if Iran is a repeat of Iraq with BS WMD claims, do you think deep down the US, Israel and others also know of this? Are they creating propaganda because they desperately want an excuse to decimate Iran?
Could this report be true?Lindsey Graham Says Israel Will Attack Iran, And The U.S. Will Follow https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhpGX...
Published on Jun 21, 2019
No one wants to decimate Iran. What for? There is nothing to gain, but a lot to lose. If anything both US and Israel were in excellent relations with Iran before ayatollahs seized the power. The ayatollahs chose belligerent and hostile approach to start with. Iran with ballistic missiles returning to its run for a nuclear weapon, having death to America and death to Israel as its official slogan is a threat. A threat to the US, Israel (existential), the Gulf, Europe and maybe others.
The threat can be dealt with diplomatically. Trump time after time invites Iran to re-negotiate the deal. If Iran means ho harm to no one, they really have very little to give up - nukes (that they are supposedly ready to freeze anyway), means of their delivery and support of terrorist groups abroad and have very much to gain - lifting of sanction and return to normal trade. They don't trust Trump? Fine. Ask to bring the deal to the Congress. I'm sure it'll pass.
Otherwise - the threat would have to be defused militarily (through aerial surgical operations), desirably with leaflets to warn local population to leave the area beforehand, or otherwise - like Stuxnet virus, as Iain mentioned above.
This alleged US warmongering just doesn't hold water. There were enough pretexts to manifest it, if it were true.
James, my view is that Bolton and Pompeo definitely want to go to war with Iran, but I don't think Trump does. The trouble with Bolton is he thinks you can drop some bombs and do a lot of damage, and all will be well. In my opinion, it is more likely to ignite a conflagration. Same with Israel. Israel can't go to war with Iran because it can't get at it, other with some bombs. Any military action that does not mean boots on ground, and lots of them, won't work.Nik, of course the US had good relations with the Shah - the Shah gave the US companies access to Iranian oil after the US helped depose Mossadeq. The Ayatollahs have all sorts of faults, but they are right about the desire to take away the value of its oil. The Shah also ran a society that by and large was very bad for the average Iranian. The Shah was easily deposed in the end because he was extremely unpopular with the masses.
As for negotiations, the Iranians cannot take anything to Congress. The Iranians have to deal with whoever the President has as Secretary of State first, which is Pompeo, and Pompeo has stated clearly he wants to get rid of the Ayatollahs. How do you negotiate with that? And anyone who thinks a "surgical strike"will achieve anything does not understand how people react to that sort of thing.
Iain wrote: "James wrote: "Israel could do it unilaterally and lead, with U.S. support in an air and naval capacity but an Israeli led foray would be more likely to ignite the entire middle-east. ..."How gun ho is this Netanyahu geezer, Iain?
You think it's true what some say that he's the most militant leader Israel could have? Or you think that's exaggerated? I don't know much about Netanyahu myself but Jewish friends I have around the world (all non-Israeli mind you) mostly tell me Netanyahu is a bit of a hardliner. I hear rumours Netanyahu is "Far Right" or has Far Right partners in his cabinet, but I'm not sure what Far Right means in the context of Israeli politics... Am just asking as Israel have nukes also...
And how much of this whole Iran issue is more religious conflict rather than political?
Are we dealing yet more unresolved factors of the whole judeo-christian-islamic Middle Eastern religious history than we are with nukes?
Or is the religious thing just an aside?
Ian wrote: "And anyone who thinks a "surgical strike"will achieve anything does not understand how people react to that sort of thing..."But Ian, Bolton and Lindsey Graham are both talking in terms of "surgical precision" as if the Iran issue can be nipped in the bud very simply and very quickly...
Could the simplicity factor instead be that we are actually dealing with very "simple minds" re Bolton and Graham? :)
Ian wrote: "James, my view is that Bolton and Pompeo definitely want to go to war with Iran, but I don't think Trump does. ..."They are the same bunch and Trump decides. Just look a little back how everyone was afraid Trump would entangle the world in armed conflicts and of Mad Dog and all, but time passed and we see that apart from 2 very limited strikes in Syria, Trump doesn't resort to military option no matter who's beside him. He relies on economic levers. Maybe those that feared sense this too. N. Korea, Iranians.
Ian wrote: "JNik, of course the US had good relations with the Shah - the Shah gave the US companies access to Iranian oil after the US helped depose Mossadeq. The Ayatollahs have all sorts of faults, but they are right about the desire to take away the value of its oil. ..."
Fine - take the oil from the Shah. Why to be hostile to anyone? Totally unnecessary. And who benefit from oil now - average Iranians? No, ayatollahs. Are they more popular than the Shah? We couldn't know because it's never put on a popular vote.
Ian wrote: "the Iranians cannot take anything to Congress ..."
Of course - not, but they can insist the renegotiated deal to be subject to Congress' approval.
Ian wrote: "And anyone who thinks a "surgical strike"will achieve anything does not understand how people react to that sort of thing.
There are live examples of how it did - Iraq reactor and Syria reactor
James wrote: "How gun ho is this Netanyahu geezer, Iain?...."
Kinda strange you would address Iain this question -:)
Iain wrote: "A mixture of political, economical and religious(as it always has been, TBH). On the Iranian side maybe more religious due to the IRGC's role of being a guardian of the Islamic Republic. Their power has increased since 79, to the extent they might be really in charge and the Ayatollah's standing more ceremonial? ..."Sounds like when Putin "stood down" and had that ceremonial puppet (Medvedev?) "in charge" of Russia...
Nik wrote: "Kinda strange you would address Iain this question -:) "Not really as I thought you were specializing in Down Under history these days - so I thought I'd leave you to that :)))
Also, I don't always think the best people to comment on leaders of countries are those within those borders. For example, some of the best insights on Trump have come from non-Americans. Sometimes those within nations can't see the wood for the trees.
Plus I think Iain's a bright spark on global politics, Nik, so I was interested in his opinion.
But I'd be interested in your views on Netanyahu too, if you care to share...
Iain wrote: "(ps: can I make a light joke like that or will I be put on trial by social media? ..."Yes, but the Muslims might feel left out here. It's all becoming too Christian-Judaic.
So I vote we add in some Islamic jokes too so we even things out.
You go first, Iain!!
James wrote: "But I'd be interested in your views on Netanyahu too, if you care to share... "Yeah, right. I'm sure -:)
Iain wrote: "I believe this is all part of a stepping stone to a new one world global order. Iran, North Korea, China and Russia represent an opposition or aren't in kink and what your seeing being played out and the real fight is at a higher-level on the chess board and being adumbrated at a political level. ..."I think you're probably right...But it seems there are many factors at play here besides the NWO elitists?
Iran and others in the Middle East want Israel decimated and we can't underestimate anti-Semitism. They are never gonna accept Israel's existence.
Saudis possibly want Iran's leadership overthrown?
Israel might be becoming more aggressive over time and suggesting George W. Bush-style "pre-emptive" strikes? (not saying some pre-emptive strikes may not be justified, but it seems someone should also be monitoring Israel and making them accountable like any other nation)
The US Empire could be up to its old tricks and the Americans could be the ones playing chess in the Middle East with false flags or at least spin? (not to mention the US economic sanctions being imposed on Iran)
Russia could be helping Iran already?
Nik wrote: "Yeah, right. I'm sure -:)"Why so serious, Nik?
I didn't even know you were up already in Israel!
Am honestly using this thread to try to learn more about the Middle East, so all opinions welcome.
And if we can insert some politically incorrect humour in during these discussions, all the better!
Iain wrote: "God, don't forget the atheists!!!..."Iain, in a Christian-Judaic-Islamic WW3 scenario, don't think Richard Dawkins will fly in to the Middle East like Superman to save the day!
Iain wrote: "Sure, I get all that and I don't under-estimate anti-antisemitism. I don't blame Isrealis or Jews for wanting to look out for themselves due to WW2, either. ..."I'm assuming that reference to not underestimating "anti-anti-Semitism" was a typo! (you've completely changed the meaning there...like some wordplay trick the Ayatollahs would probably use!)
But seriously, you make good points I think about trying to find a balance of power in the Middle East.
Problem is different players have been trying to find that balance for ages.
I'm not afraid of saying the Muslim world is nuts in that region in their hatred towards Jews in Israel. So until the hatred is at least watered down a bit in time, I predict it'll be a case of the same old, same old in the ME.
So maybe the question is are major NWO-style players on the world stage (e.g. within Europe and the US) using the Middle East as a way to further their global agendas? Do they even support more hardline politicians within Israel to become Prime Minister??
I dunno. Not pretending to have any answers here. I mean...It's not like we are gonna resolve the Middle Eastern conflict in the Underground or on Goodreads!!
Agreed. This is one area where maybe the globalisation aspect of tech might alter things for the better?
Firing even one bullet at Iran will ‘set fire’ to US & allies, Iranian general warns https://www.rt.com/news/462451-iran-b...
Nik wrote: "they can insist the renegotiated deal to be subject to Congress' approval." Insist? How? The President could still pull out. Congress is usually totally unwilling to "approve" anything in perpetuity, and anyway, there were no objections to Obama's deal.The Ayatollahs are waxing fat on oil revenues? Any figures to back that up Nik? Incidentally, "waxing fat" cannot include government expenditure, including on the military. The US has the biggest military expenditure than any other country by a long shot, but you can't accuse Trump of waxing fat because of that.
Finally, Nik, it is amazingly outrageous to regard Syria and Iraq as fine examples of surgical strikes with no consequences. Life in Syria and Iraq is now a Utopia in action? There was one military strike, and no further action required? Just because your technology is such that the other side cannot respond immediately does not mean that the other side meekly accepts its punishment, and whatever else you think about Ayatollahs, meek isn't one of them
Ian wrote: ""they can insist the renegotiated deal to be subject to Congress' approval." Insist? How?..."Simply - by adding the provision that it enters into force subject to Congressional approval. No approval - no deal
Ian wrote: ""it is amazingly outrageous to regard Syria and Iraq as fine examples of surgical strikes with no consequences. Life in Syria and Iraq is now a Utopia in action? ..."
Why? I think these are excellent examples. How is life in Syria and Iraq nowadays connected to striking their reactors without retaliation in the past when all was good there? If anything, ask Assad, whom you tend to support, why the life isn't great in the country he rules despotically.
You want another example, involving ayatollahs? Here: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mi...
200 sounds like an exaggeration to me, but that there were plenty - undoubtedly
When I launched this thread just one week ago today I suspected it’d be lively. We’d all have to agree there’s been some interesting developments since then… One of those being The Donald (Trump) refusing to sign off on a “retaliatory strike” against Iran. He actually went up in my (very low) estimation of him then. Incidentally, CNN has some interesting observations on Trump’s decision-making which now make me second guess that statement… https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/22/me...Just 46mins ago I see Washington Post announced Trump approved offensive cyber strikes that disabled Iranian computer systems used to control rocket and missile launches… https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...
So the playing field is changing almost by the minute. I see the cyber strikes represent the first offensive show of force since Cyber Command was elevated to a full combatant command in May.
We may be witnessing the first volleys in cyber warfare. Preferable to using nukes methinks. I’d suggest if Hillary were at the helm America would now be sending soldiers in body bags home from Iran.
Thoughts?
Nik, Trump has already torn up deals that had Congressional approval. And if you look at Trump's dealing with Mexico, he doesn't ask Congress. I do agree the Iranians should show more interest in negotiations, but with the likes of Pompeo and Bolton in the positions they are in, I doubt they would get very far. But as a certain Kim showed, going through the motions does gain advantages.Why has Israeli strikes against Iran in Syria ended up with no retaliation? Because Assad says so, as probably does Russia. Since the US is withdrawing from Syria, they don't want to give it an excuse to change their minds.
Why has such surgical strikes had such a down reaction? In the first place, I am far from convinced Syria and Iraq actually were close to producing nukes, so again it was an irritant, but irritants keep coming back. Israel is quite hypocritical about nukes - everyone knows they have them, and everyone suspects they would use them if push came to shove. Now, such raids generate anger, and in the case of Syria and Iraq it is true the strikes themselves had no immediate result, but they have been followed up by more intervention. They may not have been good examples because neither Iraq nor Syria were in a position to do much about them, but they remember.
The Iran - Israel confrontation is really a very irritating sideshow. Unfortunately, Iran decided to support Palestinians, and it would have been better off if it hadn't. In my view, the best first step in all this is somehow to persuade Iran and Israel to come to some sort of agreement where Iran agrees Israel is a state and should be respected as such, and then butt out of the Palestinian issue. That needs resolution, but Iran is not helping in the slightest. Iran in Syria, dealing with al Qaeda has my support. So Nik, do you support its efforts to down al Qaeda and other Wahhabi extremists?
Ian, what are your thoughts on that British newspaper article which said Iran having nukes will make the world a safer place? :)Seriously tho, maybe there could be something to that school of thought...
James wrote: "Ian, what are your thoughts on that British newspaper article which said Iran having nukes will make the world a safer place? :)Seriously tho, maybe there could be something to that school of tho..."
My personal view is that Iran is probably better off not bothering. The delivery systems are too difficult, and it should have more pressing things on which to spend what little money it has. If it gets them, the US has implied it will give/sell nuclear technology to the Saudis, and with both of them with it, I can't see how that could conceivably make the world safer/better.
i.e. Everybody having nukes is possibly the same as nobody having nukes as they all cancel each other out?
Nuclear weapons are most valuable when they are not used. Do you trust the Iranians/Saudis not to use them?
I don't believe the Iranians have proper nuclear capabilities, Ian, just like I never believed Iraq had them - hence my flippant tone in this whole thread. My understanding is the majority of academics these days do not teach that Iraq had WMDs when the US invaded in 2003.So fabricating of evidence is an underrated factor, in my opinion...
Think since WW2 most wars appear to be propaganda wars.
James wrote: "i.e. Everybody having nukes is possibly the same as nobody having nukes as they all cancel each other out?"Incorrect.
A nonexistent weapon cannot accidentally kill people, nor can a nonexistent weapon fall into the hands of those self righteous asses who will use it in the name of their overblown egos/gods.
A weapon possessed by all is guaranteed to be handled poorly and used by the worst amongst us.
Universal arming only works with weapons which have a destructive ability limited to the immediate combatants. That way the stupid and insane are limited to the poor folk in front of them. The ramifications of even a small nuclear exchange represent a significant threat to our posterity.
Evgeny wrote: "a bluff. They do not have a battlefield tactic or a nuclear deterrent system."Who doesn't, Evgeny?
Immediate crisis with Iran abates, but potential for conflict persists https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
Similarly, it has the potential to set in motion a series of events that could lead to major war. ..."
You make good points there referencing WW1 history that's hard to completely refute in relation to Iran.
If Iran were blitzed Syria-style or Yemen-style, then which major players do you feel could potentially side with Iran in anything that might result from pre-emptive attacks? Any other Muslim nations for example? And what about Russia or China?
What allies does Iran currently have, if any?