Løgn, et essentielt virkemiddel når Vestens bønder skal føres i krig. Har virket siden Vietnamkrigen, og som vi har set med de seneste afsløringer om Afghanistan, så virker det stadigvæk. Med pressen som villige kollaboratører.
Like the crucial steps toward public acceptance preceding the U.S. invasions of Vietnam and Iraq, the assassination of Qassem Soleimani was aimed at building popular support for war on Iran. Not only the justification, but the assassination itself were part of a broader strategy to grease the skids into war.
The Soleimani ploy has apparently failed, however, thanks to the carefully prepared Iranian response, which did not provoke Donald Trump to raise the stakes further. At least not yet.
The fingerprints of Pompeo are all over this provocation to war. In a striking parallel to the deception that accompanied the Gulf of Tonkin crisis in 1964—in which the American public was told about an attack on a U.S. ship that never happened, precipitating the Vietnam War—Pompeo and his allies carried out a complex deception in regard to the Soleimani hit. They claimed they had to kill the second most popular leader of Iran with no advance notice to Congress because the Iranian general was planning a massive attack that put the country in “imminent” danger.
Trump officials have so far not provided any evidence publicly to back up this version of events. In fact, when briefed by DoD officials Wednesday, Democrats complained about the lack of hard evidence presented, leaving them unconvinced there was an imminent threat. Republican Sen. Rand Paul, R-KY., said the briefing was “less than satisfying.”
I cross-checked a Pentagon casualty database with obituaries and not 1 of the 9 American servicemen killed fighting in Iraq since 2011 died at the hands of militias backed by Suleimani. His assassination was about revenge and provocation, not self-defense.
In Riyadh, there was panic. The Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, hastily sent an anti-war delegation to Washington and London. At home, his officials emphasised that the kingdom had not been consulted beforehand about the drone strike. ‘Please don’t blame us,’ was the message to Tehran. The Emirati foreign minister likewise called for restraint, warning of the devastating consequences for the Persian Gulf if war between the US and Iran were to break out.
The foreign minister of the UAE’s arch rival Qatar, home to a US air base that would be a crucial launching pad for any American war against Iran, went one step further. He visited Tehran, met with President Hassan Rouhani and offered his condolences. ‘Qatar understands the deep pain and sadness that the Iranian people and government are enduring,’ he said.
The Sunnis are standing down and the US and Israel now once again face being without real friends in the region. When push came to shove, all Kushner’s efforts amounted to nothing. How elated the Iranians must be, even in the midst of such a setback.
This led to a big rethink in Riyadh. Iran might have no navy or air force to write home about, but it does have more missiles than any other country in the region. The attacks on the US air bases in Iraq on Wednesday, and the earlier Saudi strikes, prove it knows how to use them. The damage to the Saudi oil industry if war breaks out, then, would be immense. Riyadh had to ask: if this were to happen, how certain could they be that Trump would come to their aid? It goes without saying that the bold Saudi drive to diversify their economy would come crashing down with the oil installations and water desalination plants. And Bin Salman could also kiss goodbye to the dream of mass tourism. No one but YouTube weirdos would want to visit a war zone.
Sidst redigeret af Vymer : 11th January 2020 kl. 06:11 PM.
Forhenværende nederlandsk ambassadør til Ægypten og Irak, Nikolaos van Dam, kommer med en udmærket analyse om Syrien. Han er for flink overfor vestlige politikeres motiver m.m. Han antager fx. at Vesten blot er skyldige i ønsketænkning, og ikke i bevidst at smadre Syrien som stat. (stort svaghedspunkt da der er århundredes viden om revolutioner der pegede på fiasko fra starten - især klassikeren - ingen central ledelse). Er vores embedsmænd/militærfolk virkelige så inkompetente?