Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion

Iain wrote: "Iain wrote: "P.K. wrote: "Agree again. I don't believe I saw or read A Murder of Quality. The trouble with le Carre as with many successful author's is that they have maybe two good books in them a..."

I can't agree wholly with you this time. 'The Spy Who Came In...' was very atmospheric and displayed his location experience of Berlin at that time but even the Smiley books lacked drama. They were reminiscent of his job on the Foreign Desk rather than a field agent. I think he tried to live up to his older pal, Graham Greene. They were both caught in that void between literary style and Best Seller. Trying to write to contemporary events is seldom a good idea and I don't think Le Carre has managed it. I know he was not a Zionist, infact many people think he was anti-semetic, and always wanted to write a book around the subject but the nearest he got was The Little Drummer Girl, which, I think, showed a lot of hard work but no real content. Infact, I only watched two episodes of the recent tv adaptation and never finished the book.
We might have started a new thread here, matey.

Iain wrote: "Iain wrote: "Iain wrote: "P.K. wrote: "Agree again. I don't believe I saw or read A Murder of Quality. The trouble with le Carre as with many successful author's is that they have maybe two good bo..."

I have to admit that I think McNab does what he does very well

Iain wrote: "Iain wrote: "Iain wrote: "Iain wrote: "P.K. wrote: "Iain wrote: "Iain wrote: "Iain wrote: "P.K. wrote: "Agree again. I don't believe I saw or read A Murder of Quality. The trouble with le Carre as ..."

Didn't get the link with the video? And you've got me with Kauspar Hauser?

Iain wrote: "Iain wrote: "Iain wrote: "P.K. wrote: "Iain wrote: "Iain wrote: "Iain wrote: "P.K. wrote: "Agree again. I don't believe I saw or read A Murder of Quality. The trouble with le Carre as with many suc..."

The only protection needed re Love Island is for the viewers.

Iain wrote: "P.K. wrote: "Iain wrote: "Iain wrote: "Iain wrote: "Iain wrote: "P.K. wrote: "Iain wrote: "Iain wrote: "Iain wrote: "P.K. wrote: "Agree again. I don't believe I saw or read A Murder of Quality. The..."

I'll Google Kauser, sound like one of those disfunctional US families. Ronin was a good movie. It wouldn't have been the same if they'd used Screwdriver - but it's a better drink

You guys need a new thread. Who was the last person to mention Iran?

Ian wrote: "You guys need a new thread. Who was the last person to mention Iran?"

I can only conclude Iain and P.K. are working against Iran, Ian.

So they are flooding this thread with anything but the topic at hand to distract from the fact that the West is trying to engineer a new war against Iran...

That's what (online) spies do!

Given they are both in Britain, I'd say MI6 cannot be discounted...

Iain wrote: "Ian wrote: "You guys need a new thread. Who was the last person to mention Iran?"

Sorry Ian, to bring the Iranian prophesy 'gloom and doom' on track and just in time for Xmas anoll:

HEADLINE: Ira..."

Chatham House does the best research into these things. I think the idea that Trump might look for a big bang idea as he gets more desperate approaching 2020 election has credibility. It's the sort of personal scenario that has started many wars and conflicts. On the other hand, if the impeachement thing gets to the legal stage, getting the US into a war or even an operation likely to cause a war would turn all of the country against him. But Iran is very likely to overstep its pushing any time soon. It depends who gets most desperate first, them or Trump

Iain wrote: "Well if me and P.K. are hired spies working in tandem, I wanna know why he's on a pay grade that allows him to wear a spiffy dinner suit and me a £10 baseball cap?..."

There are levels to espionage. P.K. is probably near the top of MI6, you're not.

But c'mon guys, at least mention Iran once every 100 posts!

Iain wrote: "P.K. wrote: "Iain wrote: "P.K. wrote: "Iain wrote: "Iain wrote: "Iain wrote: "Iain wrote: "P.K. wrote: "Iain wrote: "Iain wrote: "Iain wrote: "P.K. wrote: "Agree again. I don't believe I saw or rea..."

I Googled Hauser; very interesting. What is striking about it is the attention he got, can you imagine a rough-sleeper turning up at Buckingham Palace and saying he had been kept prisoner in Epstein's house and he is P. Andrew's son?

P.K. wrote: "Iain wrote: "Ian wrote: "You guys need a new thread. Who was the last person to mention Iran?"

Sorry Ian, to bring the Iranian prophesy 'gloom and doom' on track and just in time for Xmas anoll:

..."

Besides the U.S. and Israel, what is Britain's problem with Iran, P.K.?
Or does the UK not really have any major issues with Iran?

Iain wrote: "James wrote: "Ian wrote: "You guys need a new thread. Who was the last person to mention Iran?"

I can only conclude Iain and P.K. are working against Iran, Ian.

So they are flooding this thread w..."

I was working over cover

Iain wrote: "THE AIR FORCE IS UPGRADING MASSIVE PENETRATOR BOMBS FOR ATTACK ON IRAN #WARTHOGDEFENSE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yuat..."

It was decided four years ago by a military analyst who's name I cannot remember, in a BBC doc. that the nuclear facilities in Iran were too far underground for any known weapon to be effective. I daresay that Boing and others have been given priority by the Defense Dept to find something that works better but in that clip there were no stats on the weapons mentioned.

James wrote: "P.K. wrote: "Iain wrote: "Ian wrote: "You guys need a new thread. Who was the last person to mention Iran?"

Sorry Ian, to bring the Iranian prophesy 'gloom and doom' on track and just in time for ..."

I don't think the UK is any less concerned than the rest of the EU about Iran and the consequences of a war in the Gulf but the UK has been politically brain-dead for the past three and a half years and the EU hasn't got the collective stamina to take a strong stance on the issue. They are still playing along, trying not to upset Trump and hoping to delay Iran doing anything drastic before Trump gets imprisoned or ousted.

Every time I think of Iran - US war, I think of all the beautiful monuments and relics of an ancient civilisation going to dust. Of course, massive casualties; civilian as well as military, flora and fauna.


I feel like the matrix of discussion on war issues circles mostly around politics of business, security and political legacy.

Iain wrote: "The consequences here might even lead to those countries seeking their own Brexit?..."

Imagine if everyone else starts viewing Europe as a sinking ship they wanna jump off. A lot might depend on Britain's fate and maybe other countries are waiting to see how Britain does post-Brexit (if it ever actually goes thru with it).

Iain wrote: "Britain's had its nose in Iran(Persia) since the 16th century, and more recently was instrumental in producing the Sykes-Picot agreement after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and acquiring what is now Iraq.

They still have tentacles to the region. Security in trade and energy is no doubt a concern. Anything that happens there has a knock on effect...."

Oh okay.

Crazy how old unsettled conflicts from centuries ago keep rearing their ugly heads in modern wars. I keep wondering that about Crimea with Britain vs Russia (but of course, that's not the topic at hand!)

Iain wrote: "Do you think P.K. Brexit might be timely as another major conflict in the M.E. could cause an unprecedented refugee crisis and the EU would be next port of call for that?

Also the talk of a Europe..."

yes, Iain, I do. I watched, with closing eyes, a Labour member talking vaguely (and I do mean vaguely) about their recent ideas about keeping an open door policy on immigration then suddenly I was wide awake when she said something like; ' Actually, it's nonsense that immigration had anything to do with the Brexit vote. Very few people care about immigration...' The only people in the UK who do not seem to have cared about it are at the Home Office, led by Teresa May when she was their Minister.
There are no accurate figures for how many immigrants have arrived here over the past ten years and a hell of a lot of people who voted for Brexit know that and that a there has been an alarming increase in foreign languages in their communities. Those of us who look at the news (or read it even) hear Erdoghan threatening to release three million refugees into Europe. Greece cannot cope anymore, Hungary has built Trump-like fences on its borders, Italy is refusing to take any further boat-raiders, and 39 lives are suffocated in a lorry in the UK. It is a time-bomb waiting to explode and the EU is not even talking about it. What we have is a trickle, what we might soon get is a torrent. Labour has just lost thousands of votes; another wound that will bleed them to death. They live in a virtual world.

Iain wrote: "P.K. wrote: "Iain wrote: "THE AIR FORCE IS UPGRADING MASSIVE PENETRATOR BOMBS FOR ATTACK ON IRAN #WARTHOGDEFENSE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yuat..."

It was decided four years ago by a mi..."

If bombs could reach the underground facilities (2km deep), Israel would have used them. It would be like shooting a missile into a mineshaft, and that is if the launcher can get into position to do so before it's targeted.
But perhaps bombs might not be the anwer. Did anyone see the news item of the massive protests in Teheran, miles of vehicles blocking every road because of the increase in petrol prices? Shades of the yellow-vests in France, still being destructive one year on. They started for the same reason but now one excuse is just that. Same in Hong Kong; anger is on the march and the Iranians are getting very angry

James wrote: "Iain wrote: "The consequences here might even lead to those countries seeking their own Brexit?..."

Imagine if everyone else starts viewing Europe as a sinking ship they wanna jump off. A lot migh..."

One of the reasons why the EU is making it so tough for the Uk to leave. But I don't think that will happen - yet. The EU is still a safe haven in a wobbly world. It won't last, their economy isn't flexible enough to withstand the turmoil that is gathering. But if the UK does break away and makes a success of their mobile working habits and their City of London engine, other countries, like the Netherlands and even Germany, might lose faith in the federal ideas still running the EU

Iain wrote: "P.K. wrote: "Iain wrote: "P.K. wrote: "Iain wrote: "THE AIR FORCE IS UPGRADING MASSIVE PENETRATOR BOMBS FOR ATTACK ON IRAN #WARTHOGDEFENSE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yuat..."

It was deci..."
It would be very unlikely that any real revolt would not be put down quickly. But once force is used the scenario changes forever.

Interesting isn't it how much stuff comes out of the woodwork when we decide to get back on the topic.

If the facilities are really 2 km deep, forget bombs getting them. The best you could hope for are to bomb the entrances and seal them in.

Iain wrote: "Another thing as well, is how much of the media attention of the supposed mob "uproar" is coming from provinces hostile to the regime in Tehran, i.e. Sistan and Baluchestan?

That might reveal a de..."

Good background, Iain. It was reported over a year ago that there were many demonstrations against sanctions and rising inflation in the provinces but none had appeared in Tehran until now. If you remember, there were protests about rising costs under Armendhinajad (I'm sure I haven't spelt that right) and the method used to break them up was a bit unique; they had hundreds of RG's on mopeds with a pillion rider wielding a sharp cane and driving into crowds slashing people, a bit like the bag-snatchers of Italy and the recent cult in London with car-jackings and smash-and-grab raids.
The sanctions on Iraq were'nt on long enough to serve any purpose but during their long war, both countries learned the consequences of conflict and the Iranians must remember those years with some dread and, unlike Iraq, Iran was, not that long ago, a prosperous, secular society. You are right about Baluchestan, if any serious opposition comes it will most likely start from there.

Actually, Iraq was also prosperous prior to the Kuwait adventure.

Ian wrote: "Actually, Iraq was also prosperous prior to the Kuwait adventure."

Only for some, Ian. The Marsh Arabs were treated like vermin. Also, the war with Iran had taken millions of dollars from the economy.

What do you make of what Israel is currently doing in the Middle East?

Israel Strikes Dozens of Iranian, Syrian Targets Following Rocket Barrage https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/i...
Some 20 targets hit in the attack, more than half Iranian ■ Netanyahu: 'Whoever harms us - we will strike back' ■ Iranians may have suffered fatalities, senior Israeli defense official says ■ Watchdog says 23 killed, 15 of which are non-Syrian ■ Russia calls attack a 'wrong move'

Foreign Minister Israel Katz: US must upgrade military threat on Iran https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/For...

Whoever fired those rockets was a fool, but putting that aside, within Israel I believe Bibi and Benny cannot form a government, so Bibi is playing the "Strike Iran" card. Pompeo obviously favours Bibi by his statement on settlement illegality - can't think of any other reason to open that can of worms right now because until Israel actually gets a government, Pompeo's assertions that the Palestinians have to negotiate is just hot air - they have nobody to negotiate with. So Pompeo must be trying to make Bibi look better.

James wrote: "What do you make of what Israel is currently doing in the Middle East?

Israel Strikes Dozens of Iranian, Syrian Targets Following Rocket Barrage https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/i......"

I don't think they are just trying to take advantage of the Israeli political void. The rocket attacks on Israel were serious attempts to escalate the situation there and we should all be asking what Iran is trying to do right now. We know they are getting more desperate to make something happen because of the way sanctions are biting and apparently the demonstrations in many cities are getting a bit out of hand. It is always a fundamental policy when in trouble at home make war somewhere else but I think there are elements in Iran who really are thinking seriously about inflaming conflict in the ME. The riots and killings in Iraq are a serious attempt to replace the government in kabul with a Shi'ite majority one and there is now open support there for 'Our Brothers in Iran'. There is now a fine balancing act between Russia and Israel and it is in Iran's interest to unbalance it by provoking more Israeli incursion into Syrian airspace. Add to this the Iranian hope that Trump will be in deeper trouble soon and upping the anti will either send him further into the muck or provoke a more conciliatory policy with a new administration.

P.K., I was under the impression that the Shia comprise the majority in the Iraqi government and the riots are Sunni inspired, or maybe genuinely against corruption, which is endemic there.

As for escalating against Israel, I can't see where that could conceivably get them an advantage. Israel will simply bomb them back and they lose. As a strategy, it seems to me to be failure waiting to happen.

Iran’s ‘Only Crime Is We Decided Not to Fold’ https://www.globalresearch.ca/iran-on...
Foreign Minister Zarif sketches Iran-US relations for diplomats, former presidents and analysts

Zarif’s intervention was extremely forceful. He stressed how Iran “complied with every agreement and it got nothing;” how “our people believe we have not gained from being part of” the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action; how inflation is out of control; how the value of the rial dropped 70% “because of ‘coercive measures’ – not sanctions because they are illegal.”

Zarif inevitably had to evoke Mike Pompeo:

“Today the Secretary of State of the United States says publicly: ‘If Iran wants to eat, it has to obey the United States.’ This is a war crime. Starvation is a crime against humanity. It’s a newspeak headline. If Iran wants its people to eat, it has to follow what he said. He says, ‘Death to the entire Iranian people.’”

Of course the Iranian position is essentially correct, if we concentrate on the facts. The US and a few others are determined to use their military superiority to get exactly what they want. Nobody said life was fair, and you cannot really reason with a bully. Tough luck, Iran, but there is no real way out of this mess that benefits you.

Anyone with such a why, feel free to outline it, and clearly state why it will work, what they have to give up, and what they get in return, so that we can see what the deal really is. Note, if you say nukes, they already tried that and the US changed the rules.

Qasem Soleimani: US kills top Iranian general in Baghdad air strike https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle...

Iran's most powerful military commander, General Qasem Soleimani, has been killed by a US air strike in Iraq.

The 62-year old spearheaded Iranian military operations in the Middle East as head of Iran's elite Quds Force.

He was killed at Baghdad airport, alongside local Iran-backed militias, early on Friday in a strike ordered by US President Donald Trump.

Gen Soleimani's killing marks a major escalation in tensions between Washington and Tehran.

Under his leadership, Iran had bolstered Hezbollah in Lebanon and other pro-Iranian militant groups, expanded Iran's military presence in Iraq and Syria and orchestrated Syria's offensive against rebel groups in the country's long civil war.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said "severe revenge awaits the criminals" behind the attack. He also announced three days of national mourning.

Not exactly a false flag this time James. The killing was pre-emptive, according to Washington. He was killed for what Washington thought he might do, or in other words, they wanted to kill one of the most competent Iranian officers.

Any guesses as to the consequences?

Ian wrote: "Not exactly a false flag this time James. The killing was pre-emptive, according to Washington. He was killed for what Washington thought he might do, or in other words, they wanted to kill one of ..."

No I wasn't saying it was, Ian - but sorry for the ambiguity.
It's more that it's a (potentially) all a continuation of an original false flag that was discussed at the start of this thread about 6 months back.

Ian wrote: "Not exactly a false flag this time James. The killing was pre-emptive, according to Washington. He was killed for what Washington thought he might do, or in other words, they wanted to kill one of ..."

Obviously escalation or some meaningful form of reciprocation now that its global news and has been admitted as being authentic by the Iranians themselves.

But what's not clear is the timing by the U.S.? Knocking off a major hurdle(pun intended) before a major offensive? Inciting a potential situation that would require a major offensive?

Or maybe there's another angle, and in addition to the above? Soleimani was gaining a bit of notoriety for himself and gaining power.

Maybe he had exceeded his use to the Iranian elite and he was becoming an internal problem / threat to their standing or posed a breakaway?

What if they left him out to dry and the U.S. took the bait?

I guess we'll find out in the magnitude of response.

I understand seven people were killed in the attack on Baghdad International Airport - one of those being the prime target I assume.
How many of the other casualties were civilians I wonder?
And what level of collateral damage is acceptable to the US military and, for that matter, to the American people?
Is there an acceptable level of civilian deaths per strike?
Is, say, six civilian deaths considered an acceptable trade-off for one dead alleged terrorist? And does the answer to that question depend on what nationality the dead civilians were?

It most certainly does depend on the nationality. The US seemed to carry out five air strikes in retaliation to the death of one US civilian contractor. (There is another al Jazeera report of 25 being killed, but I suspect that is an exaggeration.)

Iain made an interesting speculation. I think it is probably wrong, but Qassem was apparently picked by many as an heir-apparent when the Ayatollah gave up, in which case we would get something closer to a secular leader who, because he better understood strategy from the practical point of view, might have been easier to deal with. (or not - who knows?) However, if the US wants a peaceful ending with Iran, they may have just shot themselves in the foot.

Unless, of course, Trump wants war. War is always good for re-election purposes. He forks the Dems right away - they either have to support him, or risk being dumped by the anti-Iran voter and the ignorant as "anti-American".

Ian wrote: "It most certainly does depend on the nationality. The US seemed to carry out five air strikes in retaliation to the death of one US civilian contractor. (There is another al Jazeera report of 25 be..."

"Unless, of course, Trump wants war. War is always good for re-election purposes."

Bingo!

Ian wrote: "It most certainly does depend on the nationality. The US seemed to carry out five air strikes in retaliation to the death of one US civilian contractor. (There is another al Jazeera report of 25 be..."

" in which case we would get something closer to a secular leader who, because he better understood strategy from the practical point of view, might have been easier to deal with."

From a hard-line Iranian perspective that might be exactly a good reason as any for his removal, while maintaining an element of distance from culpability and the subsequent consequences via the artifice of a U.S. attack.

I guess that is possible, in which case apart from a lot of rhetoric, I guess Iran will do nothing about it.

Ian wrote: "I guess that is possible, in which case apart from a lot of rhetoric, I guess Iran will do nothing about it."

They Iranian elites have to respond. Not responding to this particular incident, in contrast to previous incidents, would weaken really damage and weaken their position and also possibly draw attention to what I suggested.

I think though the response will be calculated, so as not to agitate the U.S. to mass mobilize and potent enough not to lose face.

Maybe more regional attacks on U.S. interests rather than anything on U.S. soil?

I don't think they can or should do anything on US soil. Their big problem is the difficulty of doing anything significant, and it may be anything they do will spark a war. Can they put up with a war? Is that in their interests?

Ian wrote: "I don't think they can or should do anything on US soil. Their big problem is the difficulty of doing anything significant, and it may be anything they do will spark a war. Can they put up with a w..."

That's my point. Finding a balance in being adversarial without losing face but not stirring the waters too much that it threatens to bring the whole House of Cards down.

Conventionally they might be limited, but they still have 'levers to exercise' over the Straits and a number of other asymmetric options, and god knows how many 'sleeper agents' based globally, if not directly via proxies.

I wouldn't under-estimate the Iranians or write them off, they have the history to prove it.

The US shouldn't want a war with Iran either, but I think the US seems to forget that it never finishes wars well, and it will be reasonably keen on one, especially Trump because going to war tends to help re-election.

It is of interest to try to formulate strategies for what Iran should do now, although to some extent we are limited by not knowing what it can do. The first question is, is Iran ready to accept war if the US does it. (In principle, that assassination IS an act of war.) They can't win a war inside ten years, so their first question is how do they inflict whatever damage they desire on the US and I think their options are fairly few. On the other hand, they can't just sit there and do nothing.

The Democrats are in the same position. They have to form some sort of policy, and fast. If they support Trump, they hand him votes, but if they oppose him, they need some sort of plan otherwise they run the risk of losing votes through being "un-American". They also have a problem. It may be that Iran's best strategy is to wait and see how the US anti-Trump movement pans out. After all, any action by Iran can wait.

The War Hoax Redux - How to Start Another War https://www.globalresearch.ca/war-hoa...

America’s hegemonic military agenda has reached a dangerous threshold: The assassination of IRGC General Soleimani ordered by Donald Trump on January 2, 2020 is tantamount to an Act of War against Iran.

US Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper described it as a “decisive defensive action” while confirming that the operation ordered by Donald Trump had been carried out by the Pentagon. “The game has changed” said Defense Secretary Esper.

This incisive article by Edward Curtin first published in June 2019 intimates that Trump’s team of advisors have been working on creating a justification for confronting Iran. According to Edward Curtin “Crazy people do crazy things”.

***

The Trump administration has a problem: How to start another war – this time with Iran – without having a justifiable reason for one. No doubt members of Trump’s team, led by the war-thirsty and perdurable John Bolton, are working hard to solve this urgent problem. If they can’t find a justification, they may have to create one. Or perhaps they will find what they have already created. Whatever the solution, Americans should feel confident that their leaders, together with their Israeli and Saudi bedfellows, are not sitting on their hands. Crazy people do crazy things.

Killing people on five Hezbollah depots did no go0od so you kill an Iranian General. Will that do it? Has Trump got the body bags ready? keep this space open

Analysts anticipate Iranian response, but don't expect all-out conflict

https://www.sharecast.com/news/intern...

Iain wrote: "Analysts anticipate Iranian response, but don't expect all-out conflict

https://www.sharecast.com/news/intern......"

Given these guys are more concerned with oil prices and stock prices, I am not sure their analysis means much. The problem as I see it, is that whatever Iran does, Trump, in an election year, is likely to retaliate even more strongly. The big question is, if stock prices are really over-valued, can Iran do anything that sparks a US recession? That would be real revenge because Trump would then be far more likely to lose, and why would Iran want to hurt Trump when the Dems will do a very fine job on their behalf if they take the White House. (It may seem a bit of a stretch with the way they are behaving, but a recession does wonders for making Presidents unpopular.)

Ian wrote: "Iain wrote: "Analysts anticipate Iranian response, but don't expect all-out conflict

https://www.sharecast.com/news/intern......"

Doesn't mean much? How so?

I wouldn't discount information coming from Wall Street or The City.

If anyone is gonna be 'in the loop' when it comes to geopolitics or geoeconomics, especially when it comes to influencing prices or the markets - it will be them.

Some might even take the perspective that they influence contentious outcomes in the region . . . .

Of course the individual's level of access, motives and information being dispensed is open to scrutiny, but I wouldn't discount the reach and even influence from some of the 'finance boys'.

Iain wrote: "Ian wrote: "Iain wrote: "Analysts anticipate Iranian response, but don't expect all-out conflict

https://www.sharecast.com/news/intern......"

Not to mention the fact you have a good portion of the world's energy supplies and trade transiting The Straits, Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman.