Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
FALSE FLAG OPERATIONS
>
Another false flag with Iran?
My guess is Iran is merely responding, so any escalation has to come from the West. At the risk of ending up in the gulag with James, I don't think Britain has the power, and Trump will not be prepared for the body bags or the effects of a general conflagration this close to 2020. I think the UK grossly miscalculated when they seized that tanker.As for a canal through Oman, now that could be a grand-standing winner. Ther are huge amounts of solid rock to go through, and the canal probably would not be finished much before people went off oil, but a lot would be going through solid peridotite! Crush that up, sprinkle it around, keep it wet, and (Ha Ha) say they are addressing the climate change effect by fixing carbon dioxide :-)
Iran, Hamas to Open Gaza Front if War Breaks Out in Israeli North, Defense Officials Believe https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/....Iran's Revolutionary Guards in contact with Palestinian group to try to force Israel to divert forces to the south in the event of war, sources say
Probably a bit of "scaremongering" here. Hamas can't do anything significant to Israel, because even if they hate the Israelis, hate does no equate to training and discipline, and there is no way Hamas could get comparable equipment. However, Gaza will remain a thorn, because the Palestinians really have very little to lose. The claim there is distrust for the PLA simply means that Israel has been too hard on its occupation terms. It thinks it can get its own way, and it can if it wants to turn the occupied territories into some sort of modest concentration camp, but if it wants a future free of the need to suppress the locals it has to give them a future. Building more settlements is not giving the average Palestinian a better future.
I think the link is correct in that neither side can back down. Trump has got the Iranians into a box, but he got himself into the same one. Neither can back down and stay politicians.
Dear Lord! Trump's got us in a Mexican Standoff!"Mexican Standoff" - n : a situation in which no one can emerge as a clear winner. A poor man's Mutually Assured Destruction.
There's a 19th Century story in Mexico that illustrates the Mexican Standoff very well. Two horse carriages going in the opposite direction entered a narrow street and met halfway through. Neither could move forward, and each insisted that the other back his horse carriage up. Each sent servants for food and water, and both stayed firm for several days, until the authorities made both of them back up.
There's no fairy-tale ending in a Mexican Standoff - the only way to survive it is to back out of it, carefully, quietly, in the dark of night! Jeez Louise... gives me a cold sweat!
Yes, but neither can back off. Trump has not thought this out, but that is not exactly surprising.
An interesting report, Iain. But it seems only to boil down to Russia just doing anything to offset the US influence in all regions. I can't see any reason for them to get too involved with Iran - apart from protecting their southern border and to annoy the US. As for joint navy exercises in the Strait of Hormuz; there's hardly enough space there in which to turn around a tanker; it would be a great way of having the accident to start a serious conflict. I can see why they might want to exercise in the Indian Ocian connecting to the Red Sea where the US 5th Fleet and other Nato partners are stationed but I doubt they have enough of a navy to operate in all those places including the Med which was why they got involved in Syria. Who knows the state of their naval forces at present? A few years ago we know their ships were going rusty from lack of funds for maintenance. I know they have been spending Kopeks they don't have on rebuilding all their military but I think it's anyone's guess as to what goes bust first; their economy or their military. Recent explosions probably point to the military being overstretched.
I agree the Russians will not get too involved in Iran - why run down your own economy in an endless war with the US when Iran will do it to the US for free? If the US thinks Iran will simply fold, they have another think coming. If they can't pacify a simple country like Afghanistan, and if ISIS is rising again in Iraq, which all evidence says it is and is only kept down by Shiite militias, then all Russia has to do is sell more weapons to Iran, paid for by Chinese oil imports. The US deploying ground troops to Iran simply means body bags, and simply bombing will lead to all sorts of trouble.
Golly, Iain, advocating the following of international law? You really think someone like John Bolton will let a little law from a toothless whatever get in his way? The US refuses to be bound by international law, and because there is no legitimate international sovereignty, nor unbiased enforcement and judgment, they have a point. But here, the US wants its way, and Iran is not interested in bending the knee, so that proposal won't get traction.
Definitely not shooting you, Iain. I just felt a little sarcasm coming on :-)
Good luck, Iain. Keep those fingers. Beware the dreaded Oceania :-)
Iain wrote: "AI can read your emotions. Should it?Advertisers, tech giants and border forces are using face tracking software to monitor our moods – whether we like it or not
https://www.theguardian.com/tech..."
The NSA will be watching you, Iain. Beware. However, that will not earn you bad points for challenging false flags with Iran, so you are partly safe :-)
So - Armageddon! And, as predicted, involving yet another battle for Meggido
Where is Nik, our Underground reporter on the ground in the Middle East? I'd like to talk to him again about how I think the Muslim world can be our friends too :)
Iain wrote: "Hizbullah Sec.-Gen. Nasrallah: If Israel Attacks Lebanon, Israeli Army's Destruction Will Be Broadcast For All To See; Our Resistance Front Stretches From Palestine To Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Y..."Seriously tho, i still think this is dangerous and everyone should cool down. We need to keep monitoring the hotheads in the US, UK and Israel. especially those warmongers who extol the virtues of "pre-emptive strikes" against the likes of Iran...
Iain wrote: "Ian wrote: "So - Armageddon! And, as predicted, involving yet another battle for Meggido"What's the scientific prognostication? There's definitely something combustible in there, Ian."
There is no scientific prognostication where pig-headed stupidity reigns :-)
Here we go..."Iran 'ready for war' after being accused of strikes on Saudi Arabia" -Reuters -
"Yemen's Houthi group claimed responsibility for Saturday's attacks that knocked out more than half of Saudi oil output or more than 5 percent of global supply but US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the assault was the work of Iran, a Houthi ally."
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/...
And so I ask again: Is the US planting the seeds for an invasion of Iran?
Lance wrote: "Here we go..."Iran 'ready for war' after being accused of strikes on Saudi Arabia" -Reuters -
"Yemen's Houthi group claimed responsibility for Saturday's attacks that knocked out more than half..."
This is a really interesting case of how to tell a lie while at the same time telling the truth. Pompeo said, "There is no evidence the Houthis did this," then concluded, "Therefore it must have been Iran." A more correct version would have been, as far as he was concerned, "I have no evidence."
Iran probably provided the drones, but that only shows that Iran is not as technologically primitive as some might think. As for being naughty for providing military hardware, the US supplies the Saudis with much more and even provides air-refuelling to help the Saudis bomb Yemen. But who cares about truth and honesty when there is money to be made? Now they can sell more anti-drone weapons.
Ian wrote: "the US supplies the Saudis with much more and even provides air-refuelling to help the Saudis bomb Yemen ..."I was thinking the exact same thing.
Double standards all over the show...And really, if you want to justify military invasion for almost any country on Earth due to bad behaviour, you probably could...
In my opinion, the biggest danger for an invasion or war with Iran is probably about this time next year. The rhetoric will be just right prior to the election, but timed so the body bags have yet to come in in serious numbers, and the timing will be chosen to offset the Dem candidate, who won't have had time to make knowledgeable objections. Am I being unduly cynical???
Who isn't cynical about modern politics, Ian? Everyone is jaded and politicians' close ties to the Military Industrial Complex is not helping matters!
I hate to show any support for the man, but could it be that Donald Trump is all that stands between the US going to war with Iran and, dare i suggest, could he be the only reason we haven't yet seen American boots on the ground in Iran?What would the reality be today under, say, Clinton?
Or has he (He) aggravated the crisis as Washington Post would suggest?https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...
He being the Don of course.
Wot gonna hppn now? Saudi Arabia oil attacks: US intelligence shows Iran’s involvement https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNkIq...
Iran has denied responsibility for an attack on Saudi Arabia but new photos raise doubts about what caused the damage.
All I can say is that my comment 329 is like most of my other attempts to predict the future - most likely wrong shortly after making it. My next guess is a surge of tweets will ensue. As for who did it, I don't doubt that one way or another, Iran provided whatever was needed to do the damage, and the Houthis are, one way or another, the cause since they have been bombed unmercifully. If Iran is wrong for the damage and must be punished, what do you do about the US, the UK and France who are busy providing the Saudis with the means to commit this mass killing of Yemenis? I know - sellmore weapons, make more money.
Trump orders Mnuchin to ‘substantially increase’ sanctions on Iran https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/18/trump...
Old Trumpy Bear looks excited by this development, notice the exclamation mark in his tweet...Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
I have just instructed the Secretary of the Treasury to substantially increase Sanctions on the country of Iran!
Sanctions? That's like.. slapping their little hands, isn't it? I think this situation is well past petty slap-handing... Time for butt-kicking!
Bonnie wrote: "Sanctions? That's like.. slapping their little hands, isn't it? I think this situation is well past petty slap-handing... Time for butt-kicking!"Uh oh... Funny how we in the West get upset when access to oil is at stake ain't it?
Perhaps, but whose butt? There is no doubt Iran supplied the missiles, but there is no proof they fired them. If Iran is responsible for their use, is the US responsible for the tens of thousands of deaths in Yemen due to Saudi bombing? Why is that not an act of war? If it is, the Houthis are simply responding as best they can, which is not very much.
Butt kicking? What are you thinking here, Bonnie? You want Trump to do in Iran something like the Bush Presidents did in Iraq??
James wrote: "Old Trumpy Bear looks excited by this development, notice the exclamation mark in his tweet...Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
I have just instructed the Secretary of the Treasury to substantia..."
Trumpy Bear is excited. He'd love to flex his muscles in a little direct mayhem against somebody in the middle east... most likely Iran. He's a bully by nature and by virtue of his god-awful narcissist PD. Plus, he's been catching daily flak from us Democrats, and probably some Independents. So I'm sure he feels a keen need to go kick some Iranian butt. :) Not that anything he does will help resolve the situation. Anything DJT is wont to do will probably escalate the confrontation over there. (Man this stuff makes me nervous! Everybody's got nukes now, right? Even Iran.. which is supposed not got a stockpile right now...but we all know they do.
I want Trump to wake up and smell the cofefe .... in other words... take a queue from Richard Nixon and bow out gracefully, stage right. I'd suggest "left", but he sure ain't no Democrat.However, the House of Representatives is finally standing up to her Royal Majesty, the Queen of Denial, and they may arrange for his exit stage left... if Nancy will stop making excuses, and do her job..which I think entails some serious glad-handing and gracious simpering across the isle in the other chamber, where the Republicans are stirring up resentment against the democrats on a daily basis now. Sigh... I'll be SO happy when this whole mess is resolved. I can't see this coming out any other way than the removal of Trump from the office he isn't doing his job in, anyway. Might take us all to the point of Civil War, but he's gonna wind up outside in the alley behind the White House, one way or the other.
Iain wrote: "AI can read your emotions. Should it?Advertisers, tech giants and border forces are using face tracking software to monitor our moods – whether we like it or not
https://www.theguardian.com/tech..."
Hmmm. whodathunkit.. .Those Iranian "hijabs"... the black head and face covering tents the Islamist women are forced to wear over there... they just might become the next great fashion statement right here in the good old (!We're watching you, white man!") USA. I bet those Muslims are laughing their tuckas off already at what we're facing here. ( Those coverall tents aren't elegant or air conditioned either! Ugh!)
James wrote: "Butt kicking? What are you thinking here, Bonnie? You want Trump to do in Iran something like the Bush Presidents did in Iraq??"Actually, no. I just want all this uproar to come to a head and be dealt with. I should shut up. I don't really want a nuclear conflict here. But we've been working up to another war for quite some time now. Sigh....
Scott Morrison scrambles to contain political mushroom cloud after Trump raises nuclear option with Iran https://www.theguardian.com/australia...The Australian press pack was hyperventilating when the US president made the suggestion Australia might be asked to join a coalition of the willing. Then collective amnesia set in
Bonnie wrote: "Hmmm. whodathunkit.. .Those Iranian "hijabs"... the black head and face covering tents the Islamist women are forced to wear over there... they just might become the next great fashion statement right here in the good old (!We're watching you, white man!") USA. I bet those Muslims are laughing their tuckas off already at what we're facing here. ( Those coverall tents aren't elegant or air conditioned either! Ugh!)..."Wow, Bonnie...Um...
Lance wrote: "Scott Morrison scrambles to contain political mushroom cloud after Trump raises nuclear option with Iran https://www.theguardian.com/australia......"If Trump even thinks about nuking a country without nukes, he has just opened the door to why they need them. or think they do.
Lance wrote: "Scott Morrison scrambles to contain political mushroom cloud after Trump raises nuclear option with Iran https://www.theguardian.com/australia......"On the face of it this report is par for the course of Trump ramblings. But a couple of quotes caught my eye; 'Iran knows if they misbehave they are on borrowed time' I don't think they do know that, Mr. President, and 'No one can beat us militarily, no one can even come close' Has no one told him about Vientnam?
P.K., he dodged Viet Nam so maybe he shuts his mind, but maybe Afghanistan could be a reminder. Iraq was not a raging success either.
They have boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria. Iran can and would go there. Also, it is far from clear that an aerial bombardment would achieve much in the long term except kill a lot of innocent civilians. Maybe Trump et al. just wants to kill so many, but I see very little point in it, and the iranians will persistently fight. Yu will have an Afghanistan all over the middle east.
oops, sorry, I did mean the Iranian army would go there, but rather they would send some advisors and equipment. If the US bombed Iran, my guess is Shiites elsewhere would up their activities. So yes, a lot would be done with proxies.Trump's problem is, if he is not to put boots on the ground, what can he do? Yes, he can drop bombs, but experience has shown that while this kills a lot of civilians, militaries do not concentrate their assets enough. He could take out the Iranian air force, but it would not really be a significant participator in any scrap anyway. Air-air combat really is one activity that depends on technology, and the US will leave Iran for dead there. If he does it with cruise missiles, there is no risk to his troops - anyone can sit behind a screen and behave as if playing a video game. The trouble is, that does not resolve anything. Further, as far as I can make out, Iran and its proxies are not initiating trouble - they are responding to it. I know they make threats against Israel, but actually doing something usually is in response to something else, as in Yemen.
So the question then is, if Trump takes action, what is he trying to achieve, and why would it work?
The militias, Iain, so far have been concentrating on ISIS. Who else do you think did the heavy lifting with boots on the ground?Iran probably has its most sensitive stuff protected in deep bunkers, but let us assume the US bombs the facilities and spews radioactivity everywhere, thus ensuring several thousand cancers. Iran launches some missiles and takes out more Saudi oil facilities and sinks half a dozen tankers in the gulf. Now what? What objective is realised?
I agree Trump can bomb what he likes. If he uses aircraft he will probably lose the odd one. If he takes warships into the Gulf he will probably lose the odd one, plus crew. What does this achieve?
The Kurds only fought around areas they intended to be in a future Kurdistan when the US gave it to them. Sorry, Kurds. No Kurdistan. I don't think ISIS were the ones to defeat ISIS, at least not intentionally.How does anyone take out Iran's ability to launch missiles from land. The Straits are fairly narrow, at least in places, and tankers are not exactly nifty. The Iranians merely have to keep whatever they are going to use hidden underground and wait until it is time, and that can go on sporadically indefinitely. Sorry, but the only ways to win a war are to remove the opposition's ability to fight, or remove their will to fight. Good luck with the second option, and I don't see how you can manage the first without boots on the ground. Lots of boots on the ground.
A lot of 'if's' here. And I don't think US or Saudi or Israeli intel has the answers to them. But what the strike on Saudi oilfields has achieved is that doing nothing is not an option. Any reading of the Iranian's announcements lately makes it clear that they really believe the US will not strike militarily - and, to me, that makes it essential that they do. John Bolton's sacking would also have given them succour that Trump will not go down the military route. But their behaviour, not releasing the British flagged tanker, delivering oil to Syria after giving an undertaking they would not, taking innocent journalists prisoner as well as several other dual nationals they have already imprisoned, needs a response that tells them 'enough is enough'. At the very least a strike on their oil facilities should be a first option and then judge what else to do after that. I know that tit for tat actions could escalate into war but somewhere along that line Iran will know that they are going to have to change their attitudes or their country will be diminished so much that they will have another revolution. Strikes on their nuclear facilities were ruled out years ago because they are impenetrable. Any action would probably mean they would close down the Strait (if we can't sell oil no one else will get any) but they will know that if they do that all gloves are off. I suspect one of the main targets US have already got in their sites is the huge naval base next to Hormuz. It will be heavily defended but it would have to be neutralised if the Straits are to be kept open.
Ian wrote: "P.K., he dodged Viet Nam so maybe he shuts his mind, but maybe Afghanistan could be a reminder. Iraq was not a raging success either."Nor was Grenada - or Cuba
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
Jeremy Hunt under pressure to back plan for Gulf force as Iran digs in https://www.theguardian.com/politics/...
Tehran signals it will not release British-flagged tanker until UK frees one of its vessels