US will not ‘stumble into’ war with Iran by mistake. If it happens, it will be by design

by Danielle Ryan

There are men in Washington intent on going to war with Iran – and very few people doubt this fact. Why then, does the media keep warning us that conflict could break out “accidentally”? The US does not go to war by mistake.

Last week, Donald Trump pinned the blame for the attack on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman squarely on Iran. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who has been running around provoking Iran in word and deed for months, called the attacks an “unacceptable escalation of tension.” The so-called proof came in the form of a grainy video that presented more questions than answers.

The version of events offered by the US was quickly challenged by the Japanese shipping company which owns one of the tankers damaged in the attack – and the German foreign minister threw another spanner in the works, saying that Washington’s footage was “not enough” to prove Iranian culpability. Britain, as could only be expected, took the Pompeo narrative at face value, with Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt explaining that it was his “instinct” to believe the US “because they are our closest ally.” Solid reasoning, as ever, from London.

However, for every irredeemable neocon who believes this sketchy story, there appear to be 10 more who doubt it – because with such a long history of using false-flag attacks to begin wars, only someone with their head buried very deep in the sand could not feel at least a little skeptical about recent events.

There is ample evidence to suggest that central figures within the Trump administration are itching for a war with Iran and willing to go to great lengths to get one. Despite this, there are repeated suggestions from the media that the US could “stumble” into a war with Iran “accidentally” or “by mistake” – despite purportedly wanting to avoid entanglement in another military conflict.

If they are not careful, “the two arch foes could stumble into a conflict,” one Reuters report warned. The UK Telegraph explained British concerns about the risks of “stumbling into an unwanted war.” Foreign Policy magazine published a piece about how Washington and Tehran could prevent an “accidental war.”

READ MORE: Why is the US always 'stumbling' or 'sliding' into war? How the media misleads with language

Let’s get one thing straight. Washington does not get into wars “by mistake.”

Between Pompeo and National Security Advisor John Bolton, Trump filled two of the most crucial positions in his administration with men who have demonstrated a psychopathic appetite for war with Iran – and not just in the last few months, but over many, many years. Bolton penned an op-ed for the New York Times in 2015 openly advocating for the US to bomb Iran. The US, he wrote “could do a thorough job of destruction” while offering “vigorous” support to the Iranian opposition. With positions in four Republican administrations, he has been impatiently making the case for Iranian regime change for decades.

The Trump administration itself has been taunting and provoking Iran from day one. For Mike “we lied, we cheated, we stole” Pompeo, who has been the most public face of Trump’s anti-Iran campaign, a conflict would certainly be no mistake, either. Trump himself appears less enthusiastic and there are rumors that he is unhappy with Bolton’s bloodlust and constant attempts to steer him toward wars. One can only hope rumors of his looming firing prove true.

The language of the “accidental war,” the conflicts that somehow manage to come looking for the US but never the other way around, is an obfuscation. It ignores years of US provocation against Iran.

This strange terminology is not reserved for Iran, either. As I have written before, the media often frames US military action as something that happened while good men fell asleep at the wheel. Media reports have had the US “drifting,” “sliding” and “sleepwalking” into wars all over the place. When it is not drowsily stumbling into conflicts, it is being “dragged into” or “sucked into” them. This language intentionally removes the agency from the most powerful and trigger-happy country on Earth, recasting it as the victim.

Incredibly, some print media have been willing to question the US narrative on the Gulf of Oman attacks – far more, at least, than they have done when it comes to other recent regime-change efforts from Syria to Venezuela. Perhaps we can actually thank Pompeo and Bolton for this sudden splash of skepticism. Their eagerness for war has been so transparent, it would be almost criminal for supposedly serious newspapers not to question their statements.

The cable news networks have been another story entirely, far more interested in beating the war drums than asking questions. CNN’s Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr is taking particular heat on Twitter for taking her title a bit too literally, regurgitating baseless claims from nameless military “sources” and spreading them around online like they were facts.

What exactly happened to those two tankers, we still don’t know. Nor can we predict what might happen next – but the one thing of which we can be totally certain, is that if the US goes to war with Iran, it will be entirely by design.

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/462044-iran-war-mistake-us/

I don't think the US were prepared to discover the Iranians could shoot down a US drone flying over Iran at high altitude, say 35,000 feet at probably 600 knots...

The president gave conflicting signals in his statements earlier today about the downed U.S. drone:

President Trump blamed someone “loose and stupid” in Iran for shooting down a United States surveillance drone early Thursday, and in bellicose comments warned that “this country will not stand for it, that I can tell you.”

But the president at the same time appeared to offer a way out of the crisis, saying that he suspected it was some individual in Iran who “made a big mistake,” even as Iran had taken credit for the strike and asserted that the high-altitude American drone was operating over Iranian air space, which American officials denied.

Trump emphasized that shooting down the drone was a “mistake,” but he also seemed to suggest that the matter wasn’t closed. When he says “this country will not stand for it,” that implies that he intends to order an attack, but as with much of what Trump says it is a guessing game which threats are real and which are meaningless. On the one hand, Trump keeps telling people in his administration that he doesn’t want war, but he has supported every aggressive and provocative action against Iran for more than thirteen months that brought us to this point. Trump’s approach to Iran is like a driver racing his car towards the edge of a cliff and occasionally shouting, “I don’t want to drive off this cliff!” at the same time that he presses down the accelerator. He does not brake, and he does not attempt to steer in a different direction. He just keeps going forward towards a disaster of his own making while protesting that he is against the disastrous outcome that he has made increasingly likely through his actions. Trump can’t have it both ways. He can’t continue to pile on sanctions, make threats, and indulge the whims of his most hard-line advisers without increasing the risk of war. There will have to be significant changes or we will be on a knife’s edge for at least the next year and a half.

Read more:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/trump-keeps-taking-us-to...

Read from top.

The trajectory of the American Empire has relied so heavily on false flag attacks one could describe it as a false flag empire.

AMERICAN PRESIDENTS like to describe the United States as a force for freedom, but by any measure America has, from its early days, been an imperial power subjugating and ruling other people’s lands mainly through bloody conquests, often using false flags or provocation in order to have a casus belli. 

Based on past American behaviour, everybody should be very sceptical of the American claim of Iranian involvement in the recent attack on the oil tankers. 

The timing is suspicious. In this recent case of ships in the Persian Gulf, why would the Iranians blow up ships when the Japanese PM Shinzo Abe was in Tehran — the first by a Japanese prime minister since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, in a visit aimed at reducing tensions between the U.S. and Iran? 

After a meeting with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, Mr Abe warned the region could “accidentally” slip into conflict. Just hours before the attacks, Abe had publicly declared that, contrary to U.S. accusations, Iran had “no intentions” of building a nuclear weapon. United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeoclaimed the U.S. assessment was “based on intelligence,” but no details were given and, sadly, the UK Government has fallen into line. 

The operator of the ship Kokuka Courageous, Japanese company Kokuka Sangyo, said the crew saw "flying objects" just before the attack, suggesting the tanker was damaged by something other than mines. Yutaka Katada, the company president, said reports of a mine attack were "false". 

If there is war, it will be as false as Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction”, or attack on a U.S. ship in the Gulf of Tonkin used to justify the Vietnam War, which killed over 3.5 million people in Indochina.

Pompeo conveniently ignores U.S. interference in the region, particularly that there would have been no Khomeini Revolution if the U.S. had not overthrown the democratically elected Mohammad Mosaddegh.

In the chapter on false flags in his book, author David Griffin discusses many of the false flag operations the U.S. has engaged in, including Operation Gladio. This was a U.S./NATO terrorist operation throughout Europe, which Swiss historian Daniele Ganser has extensively documented — an operation meant to discredit Communists and socialists.

Such operations were directly connected to the OSS, the CIA and its director, Allen Dulles, as well as Dulles' henchman, James Jesus Angleton. 

It should not be forgotten that as late as 1750 – 150 years after Britain established Jamestown and 250 years after Europeans first set foot in the continent – the American Indians constituted a majority of the population. Even a century later, in 1850, they still retained formal possession of much of the western half of the continent. 

The final assault on Indigenous land tenure, lasting roughly from the mid-19th century to 1890, was rapid and murderous. After John Sutter discovered gold in California’s Central Valley in 1848, colonists launched slaving expeditions against native peoples in the region. "That a war of extermination will continue to be waged between races, until the Indian race becomes extinct, must be expected", the State’s first governor instructed the legislature in 1851. 

In short, in the mid-19th century, Americans were still fighting to reduce, if not to eliminate, the continent’s original residents. 

1. Mexican wars of 1819 and 1846-48
Florida, Texas, New Mexico and California were Spanish possessions that revolted for independence. The U.S. built a fortification 150km inside the Mexican border.

2. Annexation of Hawaii, 1893
Queen Liliukokalani proposed changing the Hawaiian Constitution, so U.S. Marines aided the leaders of a pro-American coup and a provisional government was proclaimed. In the last days of the Harrison presidency, a Treaty of Annexation was drawn up.

3. Spanish-American War, 1898
The surprise explosion of the battleship Maine at Havana, Cuba, in which 255 of the crew died. The Hearst press accused the Spanish, claiming that the explosion was caused by a remote-controlled mine. The U.S.A. declared war on Spain, and conquered Philippines, Guam and Cuba. Subsequent investigations revealed that the explosion originated inside the Maine and that it was either an accident, such as a coal explosion, or some type of time bomb inside the battleship. Divers investigating the shipwreck found that the armour plates of the ship were blown bending outwards, not inwards

4. Korean War, 1950-1953
South Korean incursions into North Korea (1949) led to war. It involved leaders of Taiwan, South Korea and the U.S. military-industrial complex (John Foster Dulles has been mentioned as an organizer of the hostilities).

5. Vietnam War Tonkin Incident, 1964
The National Security Agency admitted it lied about what really happened in the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 by manipulating data to make it look like North Vietnamese boats fired on a U.S. ship so as to create a false justification for the Vietnam War.

6. Grenada invasion
The reason for the invasion given by the U.S. was that American medical students studying in the Grenada were in danger due the Cuban presence. The U.S. supported a new rightwing leader. 

7. Panama invasion
An incident between American and Panamanian troops led to invasion. The leader Manuel Noriega was changed and the earlier Carter administration plan to hand the control of the Canal over to Panama was cancelled. 

8. U.S. and Israeli sponsored war between Iraq and Iran, 1980-1988
The CIA-organised coup of 1953 replaced Iranian Prime Minister Mosaddegh with the dictatorial Shah, who was given the best Western military equipment. But after the revolt against the Shah, the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein to attack Iran with strategic support and weapons, including gas warfare agents. "Too bad they both cannot lose", is how Kissinger evaluated this situation.

9. Bombing of Lybia, 1984
A Mossad agent admitted that, in 1984, they had planted a radio transmitter in Gaddaffi’s compound in Tripoli, Libya, which broadcast fake terrorist trasmissions in order to frame Gaddaffi as a terrorist supporter. Ronald Reagan bombed Libya immediately thereafter.

10. Desert Storm (First Gulf War), 1991
Saddam Hussein asked for permission from the U.S. (via their ambassador, April Glaspie) to attack Kuwait, which had been asked by the U.S. to put pressure on Saddam to pay back money lent to fight against Iran. Kuwait was also illegally siphoning off oil from Iraqi fields. Saddam was told by Glaspie that the U.S. does not care about Arab quarrels. That was a trap, and after Saddam occupied Kuwait, George Bush Snr mobilised a coalition of some 40 nations to "liberate Kuwait" and to smash the recently-built Iraqi military power base. This also involved a media hoax, where the daughter of Kuwaiti U.S. ambassador played nurse on TV and testified to "witnessing" Iraqi soldiers throwing babies out of incubators in Kuwait.

11. Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan invasion), 10/7/01
Without any evidence, the former CIA-asset, Saudi Arabian Osama bin Laden, was claimed to be the mastermind behind the 9/11 strikes at the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. The leaders of Afghanistan were willing to hand over Osama for trial to a neutral nation, but the U.S. refused this compromise.

12. Enduring Justice (Second Gulf War), 3/20/03
The claimed reason of the attack was that Iraq was a clear and present danger to the U.S., with WMD's available within less than an hour after the decision to assemble them had been made.

Sorry America we don’t believe you. Please return to the comprehensive treaty negotiated with Iran and try diplomacy for a change.

Fadlullah Wilmot has served at Universities in Malaysia and Indonesia and been involved in charitable humanitarian and development work in Southeast Asia, South Asia, Africa and the Middle East. 

Read more:

https://independentaustralia.net/article-display/united-states-the-false...

Tensions between the US and Iran have escalated following the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps downing of a US Global Hawk spy drone that Tehran claimed was in violation of Iran airspace, specifically in the coastal Hormozgan province. Donald Trump initially stated that Iran had made "a very big mistake", but later walked back his comment.

US President Donald Trump approved military operation against Iran after the downing of a US Global Hawk spy drone, but pulled back from launching it on Thursday night, The New York Times reported.

According to the report, military and diplomatic officials were expecting a strike order as late as 7 p.m. (23:00 GMT) Thursday. Prior to that there were heated debates at the White House involving Trump's top national security officials and leaders from Congress.

The outlet added, citing a senior Trump administration official, that aircraft and ships had been on position to fire missiles when the order came to cancel the operation.

Donald Trump initially approved attacks against a series of Iranian targets, including radar and missile batteries, The New York Times reported citing multiple senior administration officials.

The operation, although underway, was abandoned in its early stages.

According to the report, it is not clear whether the attacks might still go forward.

The military operation was slated to take place before dawn Friday in Iran in order to "minimize risk to the Iranian military or to civilians," The New York Times reported.

CENTCOM described the downing of an American RQ-4 surveillance drone as an Iranian attempt to disrupt the ability of the US to monitor the area following recent threats to international shipping and the free flow of commerce, adding that the incident occurred in international waters.

US President Donald Trump initially said Iran made "a very big mistake", later walking back his comments by suggesting to reporters that he doubted the drone downing was intentional.

The US President also noted that the incident would have been far more serious in case the aircraft had been a manned vehicle, saying that it would have made "a big, big difference."

The incident followed recent attacks on at least six oil tankers in the Persian Gulf region that the United States blamed on Iran. Tehran in its turn has denied all the allegations.

Major General Hossein Salami, the commander-in-chief of Iran's elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, stated on Thursday that the country had downed a US drone to send a "clear message" to Washington.

"Iran is not seeking war with any country, but we are fully prepared to defend Iran," he said.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has expressed Tehran's intentions to prove that the United States is lying in its claim that its drone was downed by the Iranian army in international airspace. To that end he tweeted a map showing the location of the downing of a US Global Hawk spy drone, noting Iran had retrieved “sections” of the military drone - which originated in the UAE -  in Iranian territorial waters.

Tensions between Washington and Tehran have escalated since May 2018, when the US President scrapped the 2015 nuclear deal, which curbed Iran's nuclear programme, claiming that it failed to stop Iran's ballistic missile programme. The US administration has since adopted a "maximum pressure" policy aimed at pressuring the Islamic republic into negotiating a 'better' deal, but appears to have achieved quite the opposite so far.

Read more:

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201906211075998209-trump-approves-str...

Read from top.

At 00:14 US drone took off from UAE in stealth mode & violated Iranian airspace. It was targeted at 04:05 at the coordinates (25°59'43"N 57°02'25"E) near Kouh-e Mobarak. We've retrieved sections of the US military drone in OUR territorial waters where it was shot down.

This "We've retrieved sections of the US military drone in OUR territorial waters where it was shot down." might have been why Trump realised his commanders were bullshitting and stopped the "strike"...

More US Fake News About Iran

Bolton, Pompeo, their henchmen, and likeminded Pentagon hardliners are going all-out to manufacture a case for war on Iran based on disinformation, Big Lies and fake news.

"I do not think there was a time bomb or an object attached to the side of the ship. The crew told us something came flying at the ship, and they found a hole. Then some crew witnessed the second shot," he explained.

No credible evidence backs the Trump regime claim about Iranian responsibility for what happened.

Aside from Britain sticking to the fabricated claim, other European countries doubt it.

A grainy and clearer video of an alleged Iranian vessel removing an unexploded mine attached to the Kokuka Courageous could easily have been doctored, a stunt the US pulled and its imperial accomplices pulled before.

Iranian Defense Minister General Amir Hatami said accusations "against Iran are totally a lie and I dismiss them firmly," 

The US navy claims it removed limpet mine fragments and a magnet from one of two tankers attacked in the Gulf of Oman last week, whether true or false unclear. Either way doesn't matter.

According to Commander Sean Kido, head of US Naval Forces Central Command's explosive ordinance dive and  salvage task group:

"The limpet mine that was used in the attack (sic) is distinguishable and also strikingly bearing a resemblance to Iranian mines that have already been publicly displayed in Iranian military parades," adding:

Damage done to the tanker was "not consistent with an external flying object hitting the ship" - contradicting eyewitnesses to the incident aboard the vessel.

The above remarks have no credibility or validity. Not a shred of evidence suggests Iranian responsibility for the Gulf of Oman incident or weeks earlier regional ones.

Last Friday, Yutaka Katada, president of the company owning the damaged Kokuka Courageous refuted the Trump regime's claim, saying there's a "high chance" that a "flying object" struck the ship, not a mine as the Trump regime claimed.

The US "can show any footage...but it cannot be used as evidence." Nor can phony claims about mine fragments and a magnet linked to Iran because the US navy says so.

Washington unjustifiably justifies all its wars of aggression and other hostile actions based on bald-faced Big Lies and deception.

No official statements about US adversaries by Washington or the Pentagon are credible. Demonizing them builds a case for regime change by war or other hostile actions based on fabricated claims.

Facts on the ground don't matter, just perceptions regurgitated repeatedly by establishment media.

Propaganda works as intended. It precedes and accompanies all US wars of aggression, the dominant fourth estate providing press agent services, convincing the public to support what demands condemnation, or at least not strongly express opposition.

Bipartisan hardliners vilified Iran for the past 40 years, war plans to topple its government prepared long ago, updated over time but never implemented.

Will this time be different? Iran's Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) head Ali Shamkhani believes not, saying:

"Despite a propaganda campaign against Iran by (its enemies), no war will break out because there is no reason for a war," 

The Trump regime aims to harm Iran's economy by exerting "maximum" pressure. It's not working because Iranians are resisting its hostile actions.

The harder the US pushes, the greater the enmity of the Iranian people against Washington's imperial agenda, the same true in Syria, Venezuela, North Korea, and elsewhere.

"Iran once again will turn all US sanctions into opportunity," Shamkhani believes.

Separately on Wednesday, Iranian President Hassan Houhani called US sanctions "economic terrorism and a crime against humanity," adding:

"The entire world believes that Iran had exercised strategic patience and logic, and its moves have been based on international regulations."

Iran "fully live(s) up to its (JCPOA) commitments," affirmed by IAEA monitors. "(D)espite what some countries say, what we are doing is the least we could do" to stay committed to the agreement.

Under Article 26, suspension of its voluntary commitments is permitted by Iran if one or more other countries impose sanctions on the country relating to the agreement, the JCPOA stating:

"Iran has stated that it will treat such a re-introduction or re-imposition of the sanctions specified in Annex II, or such an imposition of new nuclear-related sanctions, as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part."

Under Article 36, Iran is afforded the same right, according to the JCPOA Dispute Resolution Mechanism. Tehran remains in compliance with the agreement despite increasing the level of its uranium enrichment and storage, along with retaining its heavy water.

The IAEA earlier said it may increase its uranium enrichment level while respecting the nuclear treaty.

It's complying the the JCPOA along with Russia and China. The Trump regime flagrantly breached it by pulling out.

So did Britain, France, and Germany by failing to observe its provisions, promising adherence with no follow-through.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home - Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Читайте больше на http://www.pravdareport.com/world/142476-fake_news_iran/

Read from top. Read also: creating smoke with his own fire...

The Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations. June 18.

I am writing to you with regard to the recent alarming security situation in the broader Persian Gulf region. There are indications that certain circles from outside of this region – through fabrications, disinformation, fake intelligence and fake news, relying on the support of their allies in the Middle East as well as dispatching naval forces to the region – are pursuing their illegitimate interests by sowing further division and creating more mistrust between regional countries in the Persian Gulf, as well as fomenting insecurity and escalating the already high tension in this volatile region. If unchecked, the current situation might – sooner or later – go beyond the perimeter of control and thereby lead to another unnecessary regional crisis.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has repeatedly warned about the mischievous intentions of such circles and the wide-ranging regional and international ramifications of their objectives. In turn, Iran has always rejected and continues to reject conflict and war. Iran will never choose war as an option or strategy in pursuing its foreign policy. It should, however, be obvious that if war is imposed on us, Iran will vigorously exercise its inherent right to self-defence in order to defend its nation and to secure its interests.

In light of the above and at a time when the region is in turmoil with no bright prospect in sight, the international community in general, and the United Nations in particular, cannot and must not remain indifferent with regard to addressing the root causes of the current state of affairs. If the issues are not thoroughly addressed, the eruption of any possible conflict will soon cross over from the regional level and will definitely have serious and extensive implications on international peace and security.

Inaction – a lose-lose approach – is not an option and can lead to a disaster that must be avoided. The only solution is in fact the adoption of a win-win approach through active engagement. Accordingly, in the view of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the current complex security environment in the region can be eased and ultimately addressed exclusively through constructive engagement and dialogue between the littoral States of the Persian Gulf. Such a regional dialogue should be based on mutual respect as well as generally recognized principles and shared objectives, notably respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of all States; the inviolability of international boundaries; non-interference in internal affairs; the peaceful settlement of disputes; the impermissibility of threat or use of force; and the promotion of peace, stability, progress and prosperity in the region.

As has been stated by Mohammad Javad Zarif, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the establishment of a collective forum for dialogue in the Persian Gulf region to facilitate engagement is long overdue. By promoting understanding, regional dialogue can lead to agreement on a broad spectrum of issues, including confidence- and security-building measures; combating terrorism and violent extremism; and ensuring freedom of navigation and the free flow of energy. It eventually can include more formal non-aggression and security cooperation arrangements.

In this context, and recalling that paragraph 8 of Security Council resolution 598 (1987) has entrusted the Secretary-General to examine “measures to enhance the security and stability of the region”, you, by operationalizing this paragraph, could furnish the necessary international umbrella for launching such a regional dialogue.

It would be highly appreciated if you could have the present letter issued as a document of the Security Council.

In the old days, it would have been absolutely essential for the United States to ensure that the Strait of Hormuz—through which a third of the world’s crude oil passes daily—remained open. It is less essential now, thanks to the oil shale revolution, which has once again made America an oil giant. We now produce more oil than Saudi Arabia and more than the Russians. 

Meantime, China has become not only the biggest consumer of energy in the world, it has become, since 2014, the biggest importer of oil in the world. So why isn’t China—which has an increasingly powerful blue water navy and can project its might with growing ease—doing more to protect the flow of oil? Its oil?

So why is the United States doing the heavy lifting in the Persian Gulf? If war breaks out with Iran, it’ll be the U.S. Navy, American men and women in uniform, and the American taxpayer that will bear the burden. Not China—which needs Mideast oil more than we do. 

Related: Strait of Hormuz: Oil ‘choke point’ in focus as U.S.-Iran tensions rise following attacks on tankers

Frankly, says Professor James Holmes of the U.S. Naval War College, the Chinese are getting a free ride. 

“The United States has always thought of itself as the guardian of maritime security. So if China sees the U.S. taking care of security of Gulf oil supplies, then it will be glad to let us do so,” he says.

Read more:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/another-way-china-is-ripping-us-off-2019-06-20?mod=MW_story_top_stories

BULLSHIT! The Chinese want to buy IRANIAN OIL, Market Watch morons! And the US are farting around with threat of serious useless war and obliteration of Iran FOR NO REASON... The Chinese would have thus to fight the USA to "protect their rights to oil". Lucky the Chinese are smart enough to let the US do their shit, otherwise we would have a giant war between the USA and China...

Here is Tehran’s conundrum: They just want to wait President Trump out, but they live in a tough neighborhood. If you are not threatening your neighbors, you are on the menu. They want to make trouble in the Gulf, but not provoke World War III.

Trump beat them to the punch, putting a military force with real muscle in the region. Tehran continues to struggle with how to push back.

So on Thursday, they shot down an unmanned Global Hawk reconnaissance drone from the United States. They said it was in their airspace. Well, Global Hawk doesn’t have to fly in their airspace to do its mission. And Global Hawks don’t get lost. So … they’re lying.

Who knows why they did this. Maybe Trump is right. Maybe it was an accident. Maybe they were poking the president. All they did was give Trump the green light to squeeze harder.

Iran violated international norms. But that doesn’t mandate a military response. First, the US doesn’t need to respond with an armed attack to keep performing the mission of keeping the straits open. 

We can also do a better job of managing our Global Hawks so this doesn’t happen again.

Read more crap at the New York Post, a merde-och media with no shame whatsoever...

First, the US VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL NORMS by repealing the "Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action" Treaty and then placing draconian sanctions on Iran unilaterally, forcing the European partners out, ALL WITHOUT PROPER REASONS NOR DIPLOMACY — but with one goal only: regime change.

This is America all over again, with a lot of its media led by a mediocre Australian media baron successful at dredging the dregs in a full barrel of turds, for cash and favours. 

...

So why hasn't the latest Middle East sabre-rattling caused greater alarm?

The principal reason is global oil traders are more worried about the slowing global economy, which on their modelling translates to falling demand and prices.

The other big difference from earlier shocks is the rapid shift of the US from energy importer to exporter.

By late last year, the US powered past both Russia and Saudi Arabia to be largest oil producer on the planet.

The US shale producers have proved themselves to be nimble at either ramping up or down production, responding quickly to price changes in the global market.

Read more:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-26/with-middle-east-tensions-why-is-...

Duh... The only things that will change the price of oil beyond the stratosphere is "should someone make a mistake" such as shooting down something that starts a full-on war. Remind me... I better go and fill up my petrol-guzzler...

Yep, thank you for UNDERSTANDING OUR CARTOON AT TOP.

When US President Donald Trump called off an airstrike against Iran after the downing of a US drone, the war hawks in Washington turned to the UK, apparently seeking to “drag it into a quagmire” and further escalate tensions between the US, its allies, and Iran, Zarif tweeted.

Make no mistake: 

Having failed to lure @realDonaldTrump into War of the Century, and fearing collapse of his#B_Team, @AmbJohnBolton is turning his venom against the UK in hopes of dragging it into a quagmire. 

Only prudence and foresight can thwart such ploys.

“Only prudence and foresight can thwart such ploys,” the foreign minister said. His words come amid an ongoing row between Iran and the UK that started when a tanker carrying Iranian oil was seized in the Strait of Gibraltar on July 4.

While the Gibraltar authorities said they suspected the tanker of violating EU sanctions against Syria, Iran denied the accusations and called the justification “laughable.” It also denounced the move as “piracy” and accused the UK authorities of acting on behalf of the US.

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/news/464699-zarif-us-uk-iran-tanker/

Read from top.

I have been waiting since the tanker carrying Iranian oil was seized in the Strait of Gibraltar on July 4, for a journalist in the Western press to wake up. We're told that the oil was on "its way to Syria" contrary to sanctions imposed by the EU on behalf of Washington — unless we still don't like Assad nor the Ruskies... Okay, think about it. Syria has more oil than it can use and has been selling oil to other countries. Even ISIS was selling Syrian oil to Turkey, which Turkey was happy to get "cheap"... Now what would an Iranian vessels sailing probably in the wrong direction in the Med or having travelled around the Cape of Good Hope to an unknown destination "suspected to be Syria" makes as much sense as going to the moon on a bicycle. But our MSM (MMMM) — our media de shit — still follow the official line probably because a stick has been pushed up their collective colon...

When General Wesley Clark, years and years ago, has spoken about the famous list of seven Middle Eastern countries to be demolished in five consecutive years, he has done nothing but remark, for the last time, if there was any need, Washington's willingness to redesign the Middle East within a more general framework of global domination. With Russia that stubbornly remaining afloat despite the profound post-Cold War existential crisis and the Yeltsin presidencies and continuing unabated to sell gas and oil to the rest of the world, the United States, prisoners of the grip of their neocons, had to necessarily take possession of the countries of the Arab world and of the neighboring North Africa so as to be able to control the local oil supply routes and then launch the definitive attack on their enemy par excellence.

The peoples of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and Iran were therefore trampled so that the destruction of Russia could take place, which would have gone from being a united and sovereign country to a western protectorate divided into at least three parts. This would have been the final move of the Brzezinski doctrine.

However, something has definitely gone wrong: of the seven countries in question, only Tunisia has been subverted quickly, completely and essentially without blood.

Gaddafi's Libya resisted alone in 2011 for almost nine months, costing NATO and the United States a considerable war effort. Even now, although destroyed and with the Colonel brutally killed, it is far from being a peaceful country and under the full control of the West.

Al Sisi's Egypt has literally reversed the "Arab spring" by which it was invested, eliminating the puppets of Washington and London from their positions of command and even approaching Moscow.

Syria has proved to be an even tougher bone, resisting for eight years the attack that the West has waged against it and thus allowing Lebanon to save itself from dissolution. It still resists now: Moscow has sent men and hardware succeeding with little effort both to preserve Damascus and to maintain its two historical bases in the Syrian territory. The Russians have given the world a strict lesson in tactics and strategy and have returned to the world stage as protagonists. It was clearly seen, to the point of mortgaging Turkey's membership of NATO although its president, that Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (who was and is still is now one of the great enthusiasts of the war against Syria) is a character to be decisively taken with pliers.

Iran has remained intact, united and sovereign. Despite the impressive campaign of economic sanctions against it. Despite the longer and more inhuman embargo after the one against Cuba and North Korea. Despite threats of attack and invasion. Despite the recurring attempts at a "colored revolution". Despite Trump's US unilateral withdrawal from the nuclear deal, a withdrawal that left not only the Iranians appalled but also the Russians and the European countries that had called themselves the guarantors of the agreement. Maybe Trump paid his personal debt to the Jewish lobby that helped him to save himself from the Russiagate or maybe not. The reasons for the American withdrawal from the agreement are of little importance, since the agreement itself from the real beginning has been a well-conceived trap against Tehran. Even now in Syria the Iranian Pasdaran, the Al-Quds forces of the exceptional general Soleimani, are fighting. It is the soldiers of the Persia of the ayatollahs who have spared the Russians the heavy losses of men that Moscow would have suffered if it had sent its infantry against the jihadists employed by the West.

And then Yemen. It must have been the penultimate country on the list to fall, before the great attack against Iran and before the biggest attack against Russia. But here, too, things did not go as the Americans had thought.

With Libya reduced to the chaotic condition of a civil war of all against all, Syria that slowly but evidently was heading for victory against its enemies and Iran that extended its influence far beyond simple regional borders, in Washington someone, drugged of poker, thought it was appropriate to raise, sparking a proxy war against the Yemeni population. This did not work either, and the war, which was mainly contracted to Saudi Arabia, first got bogged down in a conflict of mere resistance by the Yemenis against the Saudis and their local quarrels, then took on the features of a counteroffensive directly on the enemy's territory.

The Shiite Houthi of Yemen, allies of the Iranians, have once again shown that they are not an easy target. The recent attack on the Saudi oil installations of Abqaiq and Kharais carried out with a flock of drones and perhaps precision missiles launched by the Yemeni territory has suddenly halved Saudi's daily production and has made it clear once more at the House of the Saud that its territory is not inviolable.

Not only that: it has shown the whole world how much it would be unwise to attack Iran, since neither Riyadh nor Washington are able to defend the thousands of kilometers of pipelines that cross the deserts of Saudi Arabia just when the strait of Hormuz would be completely blocked by the war against Tehran.

How much would a barrel of oil cost with Venezuela unable to sell its oil, the countries of North Africa out of the game and Saudi production wiped out by the war? A price too high for the stability of the world.

Richard Black, Virginia state Senator, is among the few western politicians to whom the brain still runs fine and who maintains a natural sense of honor. Always opposed to the war against Syria, a few hours ago he declared:

"Saudis tried using cruel bombardment to install a puppet regime in Yemen.  They thought they could muscle the poor Houthi tribesmen, but they were wrong. The dramatic success of their attack on Saudi oil production is a huge victory for the Houthis of Yemen and a huge loss for Saudi Arabia's Prince Mohammad bin Salman."

We can say that it is a mistake in which not only the Saudis have fallen, but also the Americans. Black then continued:

"The U.S. has backed Saudi Arabia's losing ventures. Cut them loose now and end America's brutal war against the people of Yemen. Saudis suffer massive PR hit on verge of Aramco IPO.  Half of Saudi daily oil production knocked out by 10 Houthi drones.  Saudis spread cholera among the Houthis by bombing water purification plants.  They thought Yemen's Houthi tribesmen would fold under pressure of disease and famine, but they did not.  Saudi Arabian oil production will be at risk from this point forward.  If they were wise, they would make peace with the Houthis quickly.  They've lost the war and just don't know it."

Senator Black finally said:

"The Houthi of Yemen are like steel: they bend, but they don't break."

The point is just this: Black understands what the Saudis seem unable to understand. And with them, their sponsors in Washington. Richard Black is perhaps one of the last American patriots, a defender of those traditional American values ​​that were overwhelmed well before 9/11, precisely by those people who from 9/11 onwards shouted loudly to want to defend them.

The future is unknown but the warning that the Houthis and their Iranian allies have launched to the Saudis and the rest of the world is very clear and definite. It is up to Washington and the Western chancelleries not to underestimate it.

******************

Costantino Ceoldo - Pravda freelance

Читайте больше на http://www.pravdareport.com/opinion/142743-yemen/

Read from top