Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
FALSE FLAG OPERATIONS
>
Another false flag with Iran?
There could never be a 'win' Ian. The only way the US could win would be to occupy Iran and that just could not happen. I know Tomcats are old-hat and are now patched-up due to sanctions but they were once the pride of the US strike-force and are still capable of delivering missiles. Likewise their old Soviet era subs but there are forty of them and only one has to get through a defence net. But, heh! a war in the Gulf? Even a limited conflag. could block it. And China and Russia are not going to stand aside if such a thing happened, even if it would help Russia's economy.The big danger is that the US could use a limited strike out of pride. But Iran fights dirty; in the continuent eight year war with Iraq they didn't hesitate to use chemical weapons. A regime change is what the US desires - but that's what they thought would happen in Syria. If that's what they want they need to sell Iran cheap tv's and fridges and bombard them with dirty videos and pop-culture. Not missiles.
P.K. wrote: "they see as their country (which, incidentally Nik, was gained through terrorism of a then unknown ferocity in 1947) ..."I cherish pluralism, but this simply a false statement. Israel is ours (and Palestinians) by right not by terror. We, as an indigenous nation, certainly have a stronger claim than any European descendants living overseas. When two brothers (and we are tagged as 'cousins' with the Arabs) inherit one land plot, they need to divide it somehow. Hope our cousins would realize one day that claiming its all theirs leads them to nowhere.
As of Israel's War of Independence - admittedly there were acts of terror, but what's important they were marginal, rejected by the people and the leadership, organizations supporting them outlawed and arrested. Were American War of Independence also ferocious? -:)
P.K. wrote: "And we mustn't forget that religion prevents Israel doing the right thing in the occupied territories, Nik. ..."
No, religious dudes are the minority so far. It's comfy for our government not to do much, because the situ in Israel is quite nice. They believe there is no one to talk with on the other side. Jared offers 50 billion investment during Bahrain workshop - they say they don't need it-:) Fine!
Iraq too wasn't estimated as having the feet of clay, but folded quickly. I don't think a whatever "military option" is on the table it doesn't involve ground invasion of Iran. I ask again what for?Iran has maybe 8-10 sites that pose 'interest' to some air forces that may attempt to look at them a little closer. It's hard retaliation may endanger the regime, that's why they might think twice whether it's worth the risk. However, not sure anyone will give an order on any side.
Nik, regarding the morality, that is a slippery slope. It is true the soldier in the US Army tries to maintain what you could call a moral stance, but does the political leadership? I argue that the use of high technology to punish by killing those who are doing things you do not like, and not the direct miscreants, is hardly moral. So the US wanted to drive its army through Iraq to punish Saddam for "having weapons of mass destruction" (he did not) and hey, killing a few hundred thousand Iraqis is the price they have to pay - so you assert that is moral? Oh dear, that was a mistake - the weapons of mass destruction, but who cares - Saddam was "bad". Oops - what we end up with not exactly better, but we did what we could - let's go and pick on Iran now. With such a technical miss-match, what are the victims of this supposed to do? If they don't fight back, they are serfs to the likes of Bolton, and there is plenty of evidence that whenever US business gets involved in such a country, the locals do not benefit (apart from a few puppet tyrants that have billion dollar Swiss bank accounts). What you seem to assert is they should either fight the same way as the US army, which is guaranteed suicide, or they have to fight some other way. That is why asymmetric warfare has evolved. They fight the only way that gives them a chance to inflict damage and deter what they see as their aggressor. If that is immoral, why?
Ian wrote: "I argue that the use of high technology to punish by killing those who are doing things you do not like, and not the direct miscreants, is hardly moral...."Nobody's "Killing whom you don't like" unless you are an unaccountable despot. You have bank of legit targets, you go after them.
You want me to be shy of superior weapons? Won't for a minute. Call me militant, but I'm proud of it. Telling you guys, if you happen to have a gun and your adversary bows and arrows, don't agree to waive the weapons! The least a leader can afford to endanger his/her own personnel while achieving same purpose the better. Let those who send their troops to be cannon's fodder be shy.
Regarding Iraq and Iran as well. Saddam Hussein as the dictatorial leader of Iraq bears full responsibility to what befell his country. He invaded Kuwait. You can say he was tricked, convinced, whatever - but he did it. He could've avoided an invasion. He chose not to. Bushes weren't presidents of Iraq, they should care less about foreign countries - only to a degree of preserving rules of engagement and war. Nothing more! You call out Mike Tyson, don't whine afterwards that you need to spend a lot of time in hospital to recover. Think first whether it's a wise move on your part.
Whatever happens in Iran - is full responsibility of their leadership. Or you think they care about American lives? For them the more die the merrier. Moreover you somehow support the idea they can funnel their frustration onto third parties.
Ian wrote: "What you seem to assert is they should either fight the same way as the US army, which is guaranteed suicide, or they have to fight some other way. That is why asymmetric warfare has evolved. They fight the only way that gives them a chance to inflict damage and deter what they see as their aggressor. If that is immoral, why? ..."
Why should they fight at all? Does Trump need to beg them to negotiate? Trying to close a deal is the least the ayatollahs can do for their people. Shouldn't they want to avoid a war? But maybe they have superior weapons, who knows.
When calling out someone make sure you stand a chance when s/he picks up the gauntlet. If not - think twice, whether it's the best course of action.
So, does an 'asymmetric warfare' mean for you that any atrocity is allowed to 'inflict damage'? Raping attacker's sister or mother? Blowing up world trade center with innocent people inside? I say that is immoral and I don't think I need to explain why. Anything goes?
How about - if you can't fight try to avoid it?
Ok, guys, I hope you enjoyed my guest appearance. Hopefully, it offers some food for thought. I guess my stance might not align with a unrealistically pacifistic approach developed in a more prosperous and tranquil parts of the world, sometimes going as far as to allege the US is the evil and trying to apply this approach to much more aggressive places.
Start with placating ISIS, let's see you handle it.
I was amused (in a positive way), for example, seeing news in Australia, where headlines were at the time the bankruptcy of Ansett and some koala protection law. I doubt these would even make into the news in the local boiling pot.
Envy you, guys, can only hope the entire world will be like that one day. Might take some time..
Thanks, Iain, enjoyed the discussion and specifically your analyses. My sincere respect.Just saw your previous post before bowing out.
The Iranian society may not be as uniform as it appears: https://www.foxnews.com/world/iran-cr...
Au revoir !
Ian wrote: "Oh dear! A sensitive kiwi. And there may be Aussies reading this. I foresee trubble :-("Yup, we got trubble, right here in River City, with a capital T that stands for P that stands for pool...
Sorry Ian, I got carried away there.
Telling figures released by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism show there have been at least 6,786 confirmed US drone strikes in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia alone, resulting in as many as 12,105 deaths, many of them civilians incl. children. Little wonder Trump reversed a 2016 policy requiring US intelligence to report the number of civilians killed in US drone strikes.(Am unable to source reports on confirmed US drone strikes, IF any, in Iran. Anyone?)
Full bureau report on confirmed strikes here: https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com...
From "Vom Kriege", war is merely the carrying out of politics by other means. Nik, I agree that the Ayatollahs should negotiate, if for no other reason than to give Trump his photo op. Take N Korea. Yes, a despicable regime, we agree on that, and Trump got irate, but after negotiations that, as far as I can see achieved nothing, it fell off the radar. If the Ayatollahs agreed to negotiate, with any luck it would be put off for a while so that everyone can get organised, you have a preliminary round, with lesser figures, then the big cheeses come to bear, and that probably would not happen until next year, with any sort of luck, especially since nobody wants to do that sort of thing around Christmas. If the negotiations can stall things for a while, with general feel-good platitudes, we hit the US electoral period, and with any luck, they can deal with someone other than the likes of Bolton.Now, Nik, most unfair to say I want to placate ISIS. One of my main complaints about the rubbishing of Iran is the absolute refusal to acknowledge they did the heavy lifting in getting rid of ISIS. Yes, I fully approve of getting rid of ISIS, but any such discussion should acknowledge what actually happened. The US turned cities like Mosul into rubble from the air, and killed some fighters and a lot of civilians. It was the Iranian backed Shia militias that actually did the "boots on the ground" work, and only infantry can take and hold ground.
I would never suggest that a country should send its soldiers into a fight without using everything to keep its soldiers alive, and to allege otherwise is actually hurtful. Of course the US should use whatever it has that it thinks is optimal. As de Jomini noted in his "Art of War", the way you fight must be adjusted to the terrain and the enemy. His example was lining up like a Roman legion then (he was a Napoleonic General) would be suicide because artillery would mangle them. But that is why asymmetric warfare was developed. The less technically capable either line up and be mown down, or find some other way. The US Defence spending has effectively forced this upon them. Following your best strategy is hardly indefensible. And it is hardly morally right to say, we have the best weapons, we can kill you all, so you do what we say. The US was founded on the idea of liberty for its citizens. It is hypocritcal to deny that to everyone else.
(As an aside, while de Jomini is now suffering from being dated, it was great source material for my two books that involved Roman battles. OK, a bit cheeky to have a forward-looking commander, but then what good General is looking back? As a further aside, if you want to test yourself on strategy, review the battle of Issus. Everyone (including a West Point analysis claims Alexander won it. He certainly gave the chance for victory, and avoided losing it, but from de Jomini I would argue the critical point was carried out by Parmenio, and the interesting thing is, nobody seems to realise what he did.)
My complaint about US policy. Go to another strategist - von Manstein. He argued that a military action should have a clear objective, a clear means of carrying it out (at least in the planning stage - the enemy may also do something) AND if successful it contributes to a clear overall goal. When the goal is achieved, you should have a clear plan of what to do with it. My argument is, the US at the moment has no clear plan for Iran, no clear objective other than to bomb. They cannot make Iran do what they want without boots on the ground, and anything under a million troops will be ineffective. Iraq is a good example of what happens with no sensible plan on what to do when you achieve your nominal goal. For me, a goal that merely kills a lot of them and everything ends up worse for them is not morally right. Morals mean more than we get rid of an irritant.
Nik wrote: "Ok, guys, I hope you enjoyed my guest appearance. Hopefully, it offers some food for thought. I guess my stance might not align with a unrealistically pacifistic approach developed in a more prosp..."
Couple of things here, Nik, as like Ian I also feel you're kinda putting words in some of our mouths (and then debating extremely well against things we never said!).
"unrealistically pacifistic approach" is your opinion of pacifism, not a fact (in the wartorn history of our planet, pacifism hasn't really ever been trialled). But I don't see anyone here in this thread calling for pacifistic measures anyway.
Also, calling mere criticism of certain suggested military strikes and super-aggressive pre-emptive methods "pacifist" is not correct either. I know many in the military, or retired vets, who are equally critical of these bizarre "war on terror" ventures. Once people have actually served in battlefields and seen the reality of war, they are usually on guard against any unnecessary military actions (including even drone warfare or dropping more bombs).
Are there necessary wars like WW2? Hell yeah.
Are there also numerous unnecessary wars engineered by many of the underreported things we have discussed in this group (e.g. false flags, propaganda, news distortion)? Hell yeah - check out Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam etc etc.
One can support military and defense, yet still say "war should be the last option never the first". In fact, the military of most nations share exactly that sentiment.
Now to keep referring to ones location is again, way too simplistic. It's not as straightforward as to categorize peoples worldviews based on where they live, what their nationality or religion is, or any other surface details. I've met some of the most shallow, narrow-minded, apathetic people in my life in the world's most populated, dangerous parts of the world - conversely I've met some of the most aware, globally minded and realistic people in isolated, peaceful regions of this planet. It just depends on the individual.
Likewise, I've lived in five countries around the world and visited many others and consider myself a global citizen. I feel just as much affinity with Afghans, Israelis, Russians, Americans as I do New Zealanders. I think about things on a planetary level, never confined to any region of the world I happen to live in at the time.
Of course you could also say I called you out re your location on having an Israelicentric worldview in relation to this Iran matter...But that was only because you kept mentioning Israel a lot - hence my questions to you, trying to get a sense of where you are coming from. But other than that, I wouldn't personally categorize you or anyone else in Israel as "just a Jew" or "just another Israeli" or assume too much based on whatever you may have been born as. Again, that'd be an oversimplification and presumptuous.
Am also not really on board with making it seem as if your problems are the only ones that exist in the world and the rest of us are all living in utopia. Newsflash: Enduring anti-Semitism and regularly facing danger, survival issues or at least fear due to living within Israel's borders, is not the only way to suffer in this world. (not that I'm unsympathetic to your situation at all).
I do think the Israeli situation is troubling, as long term I'm honestly not sure if Israel can even survive. But I also think we cannot as a planet make big important decisions based off of any one nation's desires - whether USA, Israel or Russia. We somehow need to protect vulnerable nations like Israel, whilst also not allowing warmongers in certain nations to dictate unnecessary military actions. Because I think history does show that nations and groups who have been attacked, victimized or threatened a lot can conversely become overly aggressive and antagonistic at times (which is understandable according to human nature, but it should also be monitored by the likes of the UN). I'm not necessarily saying Israel fits into that category, but it's something to think about...and due to (realistic) fear of being surrounded by enemies everywhere, it does kinda make sense that Israel's more militant leaders would always, or at least usually, encourage the US to use force in the Middle East... Finding the most balanced approach to deal with terrorism, and expose the false flag propaganda the West and Russia do to engineer wars, will ultimately protect Israel and all nations of the Earth.
Anyway, I appreciated you sharing more about Israel and I for one found it enlightening.
Have a good day,
James
America is Resorting to False Flags to Start Iran War - Abby Martin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiL8Z...
False Flags to counter false flags wouldn't surprise me, Iain!!
1979 version of Tinker better you think?
Agree. Maybe the direction or atmosphere of 79 version was better as that was shot during the Cold War?
Iain wrote: "James wrote: "False Flags to counter false flags wouldn't surprise me, Iain!!"We have a mole, Jim:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5h1XZ..."
There is probably an element of 'false flag' about the report but Reuters and other news outlets have been reporting for some time about increased public unrest and demos in cities away from Teheran. US and West intel would know this and it is probably such intel that led Trump to trash the Iran nuclear pact and increase sanctions and several defense analysts here have agreed that it is a policy that stands more chance of working than any other. The question remains though, how will the Iran regime act to quell the unrest. By doing something stupid? Sanctions do work. It is interesting that Putin has made several statements recently suggesting an olive branch and he has requested a meeting with Teresa May today at the G6 summit. No doubt many countries are looking at ways of blocking people power - as we are enjoying here.
Nik, you can't mix up what happened in Kuwait with Iraq. Saddam invaded a neutral country and other nations have a legal right to go to their aid. That wasn't the case with Iraq. It was the first time the UK has ever declared unilateral war with another country. That's why 2m people came out onto the streets to protest.
And don't think because we are critical of present US policy we are against Israel. We are doing what democrats do in democracies; arguing a case. And I see Israel is fortunately not immune to this; Barak is thinking of making a come-back to unseat Netanyahu. You may have to start arguing your case there.
P.K. wrote: "And don't think because we are critical of present US policy we are against Israel. We are doing what democrats do in democracies; arguing a case. And I see Israel is fortunately not immune to this; Barak is thinking of making a come-back to unseat Netanyahu. You may have to start arguing your case there. ...."Okay, interesting info.
Again, this is not to say Iran hasn't actually launched attacks lately (we don't know)... But speaking of Iran and False Flags...we may have been here before at least once by the looks...
Project TP-Ajax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
Main article: 1953 Iranian coup d'état
On 4 April 1953, the CIA was ordered to undermine the government of Iran over a four-month period, as a precursor to overthrowing Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh.[24] One tactic used to undermine Mosaddegh was to carry out false flag attacks "on mosques and key public figures", to be blamed on Iranian communists loyal to the government.[24]
The CIA project was code-named TP-Ajax, and the tactic of a "directed campaign of bombings by Iranians posing as members of the Communist party",[25] involved the bombing of "at least one" well known Muslim's house by CIA agents posing as Communists.[25] The CIA determined that the tactic of false flag attacks added to the "positive outcome" of Project TPAJAX.[24]
However, as "the C.I.A. burned nearly all of its files on its role in the 1953 coup in Iran", the true extent of the tactic has been difficult for historians to discern.
And the affects of that are still being processed in Iran. The UK/US false flag tactics to reestablish a Shah are still the main propaganda tool being used against the West and especially the US. It makes it very difficult for the Satans to get the Iranians on their side. We have very bad history with Iran and they have long memories.
Nik wrote: "Ok, guys, I hope you enjoyed my guest appearance. Hopefully, it offers some food for thought. I guess my stance might not align with a unrealistically pacifistic approach developed in a more prosp..."
Hey Nik, as a former journo I can resonate with your comment, "I was amused (in a positive way), for example, seeing news in Australia, where headlines were at the time the bankruptcy of Ansett and some koala protection law. I doubt these would even make into the news in the local boiling pot."
You'd be even more amused by TV news coverage here in NZ where viewers are forced to watch a prime time report on a kitten being rescued from a tree or a new ladies' knitting club being launched whilst bombs are going off in the M.E. and Trump is tweeting about the Prince of Whales and Boris is going off at his live-in lover and... Well, you get the gist of it.
Did PK mean to write Satans? If so, that typo was probably a Freudian slip in that there's probably loads of Satan-like people involved in all this
Maybe not many in the West even understand what Iran is?Persian Fire: The First World Empire and the Battle for the West
Iain wrote: "Lance wrote: "Nik wrote: "Ok, guys, I hope you enjoyed my guest appearance. Hopefully, it offers some food for thought. I guess my stance might not align with a unrealistically pacifistic approach..."
This presupposes the West knows what it wants. I am far from convinced that there is a uniform realistic "want", other than Iran do what we say when we say it.
How about Britain tho? They need Middle Eastern oil don't they? Likewise with all of the EU?
Watch "GEORGE GALLOWAY TALKS TRUTH ON IRAN ESCALATION" on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPOfW...
I am not convinced the US shale production could compensate. Sure, the US could be supplied, but what about places like Japan and China, and for that matter, my part of the world, where all our oil comes from the Gulf. Russia may be able to help China but I rather fancy prices will soar, and don't tell me US producers won't raise their prices to match.
Adviser warns Tehran could seize UK oil tanker if Iranian ship not releasedBy Bianca Britton, Shirzad Bozorgmehr, Arnaud Siad and Nada Bashir, CNN
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/05/mi...
Updated 1136 GMT (1936 HKT) July 7, 2019
Iranian oil tanker bound for Syria seized by Britain
Lance wrote: "Adviser warns Tehran could seize UK oil tanker if Iranian ship not releasedBy Bianca Britton, Shirzad Bozorgmehr, Arnaud Siad and Nada Bashir, CNN
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/05/mi......"
The interesting thing about this is the Brits are acting for the EU, Britain is trying to leave the EU, the Iranian ship is breaking no EU law, the Iranian ship is actually registered in Panama so in law it is actually arguably Panamanian, and the EU is suppose to be not applying sanctions on Iran. They obviously have no justification for this under any reasonable interpretation of law so it is another act of war.
The EU/UK are seemingly vassal states of the US. Trump Rules!
Ian wrote: "The interesting thing about this is the Brits are acting for the EU, Britain is trying to leave the EU, the Iranian ship is breaking no EU law, the Iranian ship is actually registered in Panama so in law it is actually arguably Panamanian, and the EU is suppose to be not applying sanctions on Iran. ..."So ridiculous it sounds like a scene from a Monty Python sketch!
Iran passes new nuclear deal limit as China blames US for crisis https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/0...Tehran begins enriching uranium beyond deal limit as Beijing denounces US's 'unilateral bullying'.
The problem seems to be that Trump sees a deal as something that he will whittle away at because the other side will do anything to keep it. This time they won't. Trump seems not to realise that when you break your side of the deal, the other side can ignore its obligations.
I agree with your assertion here. Much to my dread, I worry about the things Trump does on the International Scene because he lacks a moral compass. He does whatever he wants, and he doesn't care what others want or what they say. He's dangerous, and his acts will have lasting effects on the world, and not just himself, or even just the United States.
James wrote: "Ian wrote: "The interesting thing about this is the Brits are acting for the EU, Britain is trying to leave the EU, the Iranian ship is breaking no EU law, the Iranian ship is actually registered i..."i think the stated reason for the arrest of the tanker is that it was supposedly aiming for Syria and the EU is abiding by UN sanctions on supplying the Assad regime with anything. But the interesting question is why a Supertanker, too big to go through Suez, wanders all the way around the Cape to get to its destination. The aside that it is carrying a billion dollars worth of oil revenue for Iran is not the point of the exercise - as yet.
Which raises the question, why the sanctions on Syria? The US bombing of Syria has reduced a number of cities to rubble, and the US has effectively stolen the Syrian oil fields. That is simply international bullying. The US knows Syria can't do anything to it, so it sets out to make life as miserable as it can for the Syrians. How brave can Trump get! It might be a bit different if Trump had to live for a month under the conditions of most of the Syrians.
You seem to be a bit near to being anti-US, Ian. I don't think the sanctions against Assad have anything to do with Trump; they were imposed by a UN resolution when Assad went to war on his own people. But, yes, nothing can be more miserable than the state of Syria for many Syrians. They are but pawns in an international power struggle; Russia v The West, Iran v Saudi and Isil v everyone else. I don't know the state of the Syrian oil fields but I cannot imagine they are worth zilch at the moment.
P.K. wrote: "You seem to be a bit near to being anti-US, Ian. I don't think the sanctions against Assad have anything to do with Trump; they were imposed by a UN resolution when Assad went to war on his own peo..."The sanctions might have been imposed by the UN, but ask when? That was in response to Assad being nasty to his civilian population early on. Those sanctions cannot be lifted because the US would veto that. My question back is, given that Syria has major cities in rubble thanks to bombing, which was not endorsed by the UN, exactly how can they rebuild if they cannot use heavy machinery? And how can they use heavy machinery without diesel? Is the idea that we can have the odd million Syrians living in tents until they die of exposure, poor sanitation, whatever in thirty odd years or so the sign of a civilised government? Where many are living, apart from the presence of gas chambers, is little better than a concentration camp.
The Syrian oil fields lie to the east and north-east of Deir es Zor, and up until a year ago they were in deep ISIS held territory. They are run by ConocoPhillips, and apparently they ran through the civil war, shipping oil through Turkey, with ISIS taking the tithe that would otherwise be held by the Syrian government. So Conoco was effectively helping fund ISIS. After Assad retook Deir es Zor, after a little consolidation a part of the Syrian army plus some Russian mercenaries headed off to get ISIS out of the oil fields and recover them for Syria. The US bombed the shit out of them, nominally to protect US soldiers there. As far as I am aware, the oil fields continue producing and no money goes to Syria. If that is not stealing, let me know a better verb.
Trump does that because he can. The typical bully beats up those that cannot fight back, which I assume is why Iran is taking the position it is taking. How successful Iran will be remains to be seen, but I doubt it will back down. Meanwhile, the poor Syrian population suffer. The US has done what it could to help break Syria; it is doing absolutely zip to help fix it, presumably because of this fixation on getting rid of Assad. Sure, Assad is not a very nice guy, but guess who would replace him? Nice civil elections? Get real - it would be al Qaeda under whatever rebrand they choose today.
I am not sure they can go bankrupt. Who do they owe money to? In the event they do, they simply cannot pay because sanctions prevent them using the Western banking system. Life will certainly be hard for the masses, but that actually helps the Ayatollahs keep control. The way to overthrow the Ayatollahs is to show there are better things out there, and give them the means of organising revolt. It is hard to revolt when all your efforts are spent getting food. Iranian farmers will presumably be well looked after.I looked at their trade figures, which were interesting (but unfortunately, not dated.) They were definitely enterprising traders, and appeared to be running a small trade surplus, and it is not restricted to oil. Much of the trade is with eastern parts -China, Korea, India, Pakistan, etc. The economy seems to be sufficiently diverse that they will probably survive if they can get their products across. Russia is a key to land access, and the new Chinese "Belt and Road".
Iran warns western powers to 'leave region' amid Gulf crisis https://www.theguardian.com/world/201...Foreign ministry demands release of Iranian oil tanker UK seized last week
UK sends second warship to Gulf after Iran threats over seized tanker off Gibraltar https://news.sky.com/story/this-is-a-...
Tensions are mounting in the Gulf after a Royal Navy warship deterred Iranian patrol boats trying to impede a British tanker.
Been outa circulation due to Wimbledon and Cricket World Cup (Commiserations, Ian. NZ were amazing though). It's not too flippant of me to mix sport with these posts; one of the teams in CWC was Afghanistan. There is a wonderful story of how kids in war zones were given cricket bats and balls by the military and, in five years got a team together good enough to compete with the best. It is not much unlike your idea, Ian of showing the Iranians there are better things out there. For generations we stupid English have been saying the world would be a better place if everyone played cricket. But, seriously, the link is strong; Pakistan played India in Manchester and 25,000 rabid supporters sat together and there was not one bad incident reported. Apart from that I have little that is positive to say about what is happening in the Middle East. Unless a different approach to Iran than Trump's is instigated it can only end in economic disaster - for everyone. Assad imagined that he could put down the unrest in the country. Perhaps, with no outside interference he could have done so with less diastrous consequences for the country. But it only takes one power-base to oppose another for a war to start and it never ends well. What always amazes me is that people don't seem to learn from history. There is always some idiot who thinks he can win a war. I'm not sure even the worst of the Iranian RG's would think that but what they certainly will think is that they can beat Saudi if all hell breaks in the region. Pride is a fatal poison.
Hi P.K., Yes the cricket was a bit gut wrenching, especially now an international umpire has stated that the umpires on the field apparently did not know the rules properly, and the 6 that was awarded for the accidental boundary off Stokes' bat should have been 5. That resolves the tie!As for Iran, the problem as I see it is that for them it is not really an option. The US has said, no negotiation, it's our way or else. They have little option but to say, I guess it's "else".
Ian wrote: "Hi P.K., Yes the cricket was a bit gut wrenching, especially now an international umpire has stated that the umpires on the field apparently did not know the rules properly, and the 6 that was awar..."Yes, Ian. I agre with all that, especially the cricket. Technically you should have won and no one would have said you didn't deserve it. But in the end the game won; great sportsmanship all round. At least you had the bonus of kane Williamson getting the Player of the Series award.
Back to Iran. Are the Brits being paranoid or is it just Iran being themselves?
Trump is not Reagan. However, the sanctions are crippling Iran, and they are lashing out. This was most likely in response to the Brit's seizure on their oil tanker on the way to Syria. Where does Putin stand on this is the bigger issue?
Iain, I don't see how 320 kilometers of canal digging in Yemen is going to help much. Is Saudi going to conquer Yemen? Is the US going to permit that? Help that? Do the Yemeni's have any rights at all?
As for Iran, I think it is quite obvious this is in retaliation for the British seizing the Iranian vessel, which under international law is an act of war. You cannot claim it is enforcement of a law (sanctions against someone) unless you have sovereignty over that someone, and the EU does not have sovereignty over Iran, at least not yet.The real question is, where does this go next? I do not believe Iran can back down without effectively bring their arses and being caned every time Trump's nose gets out of joint, which is at least twice a day. Also, since the EU has promised to avoid the sanctions on Iran, and then did nothing but yabber, it does not seem to have a policy. Why the UK went along with this, when they are trying to leave the EU puzzles me completely. They should have let Brussels actually do something for once instead of talk.
The whole Iran ship hijack incident seems orchestrated to me. Very likely Trump is dragging them into a war to punish them for ignoring Nuclear sanctions. They neither have the resources or ability to stage a full-fledged war. It merely seems a Trump ploy to divert attention from his shabby homefront activities.
Iain wrote: "or Iran ends up in a civil war(hard to see as they identify mostly as Persians in unison than other ME countries)..."Good point, Iain.
Knowing a few Persians, I get the sense they are pretty unified as a people in that country -- despite the obvious corruption of those who run Iran.
Like everywhere else on Earth: "everybody hates the bastards in power!"
Ian wrote: "The real question is, where does this go next?..."More false flags and business as usual with the geopolitics, sanctions and war/financial machines?
Iain wrote: "Uh, oh! Gulag in the future for you Morcan!..."if it's an underground gulag I'll be okay...in fact, that's where I thrive, pal!
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
But what of US motives? There are so many possibilities it is difficult to choose the best one. My guess is that there are two; not to jeopardise sales to Saudi - Trump made that obvious over the Khasoggi affair - and to support Israel, he made that equally obvious by moving the Embassy to Jerusalem. Trump is loyal to his friends if nothing else. But how far will he go in this regard?
Most Washington wags are convinced Bolton thinks the US can win a war with Iran. It is therefore not unimaginable that the holed tanker was a Red Flag. It is strange that Japan and the shipping company have been strangely silent on this matter and the one reported line from the tanker skipper that they saw a missile object fired into the ship has some credence - especially as he has not been allowed to elaborate on it since. The fact that the holes were perfectly placed above the waterline and they were on the starboard side and not on the Iran side is more than interesting. And that the superb definition photo's of the damage was released the day after the US drone was shot down could be interpreted that the US needed better evidence than the dubious video's they had shown previously makes one believe that this was a Red Flag flown by John Bolton and his hawks. But Trump instinctively knows his limitations even if his mouth doesn't and I don't believe he was ever near ordering a missile strike on Iran. The one quarter he has more respect for than himself is the military and his military chiefs will be telling him that a military strike would be a disaster of unknown proportions. As, I think Ian hinted at ; a sinking US carrier would be a sinking US. Let us hope the EU ambassadors can persuade everyone to calm down so we can all get back to contemplating our navels.