It must surely be unique in the context of post-World War II US regime change wars/imperial interventions that one has to go no further than the following report, Mission ends in flames, published in those two mainstream organs, the LA Times and the Washington Post.
So bold, blatant and in-your-face has the US lust for regime change in Iran become under Trump that, wonder of wonders, one has no need to look beyond the mainstream press itself to establish that dirty tricks, provocations and false flag operations are being deliberately used by the US as pretexts for a war against that country.
I rest my case:
"Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe went to Iran this week for a two-day trip that was aimed at cooling tensions in the region. And then things blew up. On Thursday, two oil tankers - one a Japanese-owned ship - came under suspected attack in the Gulf of Oman... US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo quickly blamed Tehran for what he called 'a blatant assault'... Shortly after, the US military released a video it said showed Iran's Revolutionary Guard removing an unexploded mine from the side of one of the tankers... But the Japanese ship operator and sailors on board its ship, the Kokuka Courageous, saw 'flying objects' just before the attack, suggesting the tanker wasn't damaged by mines and contradicting the US military. The apparent attacks, a month after four other tankers were damaged in mine explosions that the Trump administration also blamed on Iran - without providing evidence - sharply raised fears in the strategically important region that Washington might use such incidents to punish the Islamic Republic even without ironclad proof of its involvement [...] Also unclear was what Iran would gain from such an assault - coinciding with Abe's high-profile visit to Tehran aimed at salvaging the 2015 international nuclear deal. Both ships, according to the Japanese government, were carrying 'Japan-related' cargo, leading Iranian foreign Minister Javid Zarif to question the timing of the apparent attacks. 'Reported attacks on Japan-related tankers occurred while PM Shinzo Abe was meeting Ayatollah Khamenei for extensive and friendly talks. 'Suspicious,' he tweeted, 'doesn't begin to describe what likely happened this morning'." (Nabih Bulos, 15/6/19)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
There is an unusual and interesting view by Bernhard at Moon of Alabama:
https://www.moonofalabama.org/
I am not convinced of B's take on this, nor are many of the commenters. The commenters here are some of the most mature and well-informed on the internet - a rare troll is usually quickly dispatched. Now over 300 comments.
Which number?
Are you referring to the "over 300" remark? Just before posting it was at 323. But then a little later it dropped back to 260. He must have done a cull, which is strange because I didn't see that much obvious trollery. Maybe a few double posts.
Sorry, G, I can't find Bernhard at all.
Bernhard is the writer of the articles - not a commenter. Well he does comment sometimes - as "b". I was referring to the entire discussion.
Hi G, I've just read Bernhard's 'Today's attacks on ships in the Gulf of Oman are not in Iran's interests - or are they?'and am as puzzled by his post as you are. Marshal (sic) Islands? Panama? etc
The explosion aboard the USS Maine in Havana harbour was the pretext leading to the Spanish American War. The war concluded with the USA looting the Spanish treasury and controlling Spanish colonies, like Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines. No evidence needed.
The USS Maine was eventually raised from the harbour bottom. The explosion came from inside because the steel plates were blown from the inside out . It was not Spanish sabotage as claimed at the time by the Hearst newspaper chain and others clamouring for war.
Interestingly, Theodore Roosevelt and his 'roughriders' payed a newsworthy part in the war. However his grandson, Kermit Roosevelt, played a sinister, but behind the scenes, role in regime change in Iran, deposing the legitimate elected government and installing the Shah in 1954.
Where are the mainstream and responsible US and world leaders calling for restraint and opposing another stupid war? Could their silence be explained because they really know qui bono, who benifits? Well that would put them on auto-pilot.
I suspect any war against Iran will be no walk in the park because all war plans become obsolete after the first day.
Will the 'no war for oil' troglodytes re emerge? No more wars for Israel should be their new catch cry.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/03/01/remember-the-maine-cia-intervention-in-venezuela/
Just a correction, anon, the democratically elected Mossadegh government in Iran was overthrown in a CIA coup in 1953. I also think that false flag operations such as the Maine, the Gulf of Tonkin, and even Saddam's imaginary weapons of destruction, sadly, have never crossed the minds of today's msm media people for the simple reason that they are entirely ignorant of the historical record. They wouldn't even know Franklin D Roosevelt from Theodore Roosevelt, their historical ignorance is that abysmal.
On the SBS English version of the Japanese news, they showed Abe making those quotes and they even showed footage of the ship's crew with the Iranian RESCUE crew who had come to the Kokuka's aid.....needless to say everyone was smiling. I agree with Grappler's take on Bernhard's report on this, and yes the comments seemed unusual for Moon of Alabama, in fact the whole discussion.
There was a good piece titled The Curious Case of the Tankers, posted by Nat South on the Saker Blog last Friday, 14 June 2019.
http://thesaker.is/the-curious-case-of-the-tankers/
On The English version of the Japanese News, SBS broadcast Shinzo Abe's interview where he reported that the Japanese ship's crew had been hit by a flying object. Also played was footage of the crew of the Kokuka and their Iranian RESCUERS. Needless to say there were smiles all round, no acrimony. I agree with Grappler's take on Bernhard's article and the resultant discussion.....definitely something amiss.
I notice that Bernhard has produced an update on his original post. In it he backtracks: "That Iran may have this motive does not mean that it is responsible for today's attack. Risking to sink two foreign tankers in international water is not what an otherwise cautious Iran would typically do. Someone else might have initiated it to blame it."
Bernhard's strongest critic is Yeah, Right at 20 and 23.
Post a Comment