Seven Reasons To Be Highly Skeptical Of The Gulf Of Oman Incident
In a move that surprised exactly zero people,[Trump’s] Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has
wasted no time scrambling to blame Iran … Pompeo concluded before hastily shambling off, taking
exactly zero questions.
Here are seven reasons to be extremely skeptical of everything Pompeo said:
1.
[Trump's] Pompeo is a known liar, especially when it comes to Iran.
Pompeo has
a well-established history of circulating blatant lies about Iran … he recently
told an audience at Texas A&M University that when he was leading the CIA, “We lied, we cheated, we stole. We had entire training courses.”
2.
The US empire is known to use lies and false flags to start wars.
The US-centralized power alliance
has an extensive and well-documented history of advancing preexisting military agendas using lies, false flags and psyops …
3.
[Trump's] John Bolton has openly endorsed lying to advance military agendas.
I
wrote an article about this last month because the T
rump administration had already begun rapidly escalating against Iran in ways that happen to
align perfectly with the longtime agendas of Trump’s psychopathic Iran hawk National Security Advisor. At that time people were so aware of the possibility that Bolton might involve himself in staging yet another Middle Eastern war based on lies that
The Onion was already spoofing it. …
Bolton said. “You know Winston Churchill said during World War Two that in wartime truth is so important it should be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies.”
“Do you really believe that?” asked an incredulous Napolitano.
“Absolutely,” Bolton replied.
“You would lie in order to preserve the truth?”
“If I had to say something I knew was false to protect American national security, I would do it,” Bolton answered.
This would be the same
John Bolton who has been paid exorbitant speaking fees by the pro-regime change MEK terror cult, promising the cult in a 2017 speech that they’d be celebrating regime change in Tehran together before 2019. This would also be the same John Bolton who
once threatened to murder an OPCW official’s children if he didn’t stop getting in the way of his Iraq war agenda.
4.
Using false flags to start a war with Iran is already an established idea in the DC swamp.
Back in 2012 at a forum for the Washington Institute Of Near East Policy think tank, the group’s Director of Research Patrick Clawson
openly talked about the possibility of using a false flag to provoke a war with Iran, citing the various ways the US has done exactly that with its previous wars.
“I frankly think that crisis initiation is really tough, and it’s very hard for me to see how the United States president can get us to war with Iran,”
Clawson began. … “Some people might think that Mr. Roosevelt wanted to get us into the war… you may recall we had to wait for Pearl Harbor. Some people might think that Mr. Wilson wanted to get us into World War One; you may recall we had to wait for the Lusitania episode. Some people might think that Mr. Johnson wanted to get us into Vietnam; you may recall we had to wait for the Gulf of Tonkin episode. We didn’t go to war with Spain until the USS Maine exploded. And may I point out that Mr. Lincoln did not feel that he could call out the Army until Fort Sumter was attacked, which is why he ordered the commander at Fort Sumter to do exactly that thing which the South Carolinians said would cause an attack.”
“So
if, in fact, the Iranians aren’t going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war,” Clawson continued. “One can combine other means of pressure with sanctions. I mentioned that explosion on August 17th. We could step up the pressure. I mean look people, Iranian submarines periodically go down. Some day, one of them might not come up. Who would know why? … We can do a variety of things, if we wish to increase the pressure (I’m not advocating that) but I’m just suggesting that this is not an either/or proposition — just sanctions have to succeed or other things. We are in the game of using covert means against the Iranians. We could get nastier at that.”
5.
[Trump's] US State Department has already been running psyops to manipulate the public Iran narrative.
Outrage on Capitol Hill over completely unacceptable
US-funded scheme to shape Iran debate. The @IranDisinfo troll campaign targeted American citizens critical of Trump’s Iran policy and accused them of being loyal to Tehran regime.
Me and
@borzou https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/us-iran-congress-meeting-money-trump-conflict-a8954191.html …
Outrage on Capitol Hill over ‘completely unacceptable’ US-funded sch…
United States officials say they are outraged by a government-funded troll campaign that has targeted American citizens critical of the administration’s hardline Iran policy and accused critics of independent.co.uk
State Department officials admitted to Congressional staff at a closed-door meeting on Monday that a $1.5 million troll farm had gone “beyond the scope of its mandate” by
aggressively smearing American critics of the Trump administration’s Iran policy as propagandists for the Iranian government, according to
a new report from
The Independent. That “mandate” had reportedly consisted of “countering propaganda from Iran”, also known as conducting anti-Iran propaganda. …
6.
The Gulf of Oman narrative makes no sense.
Here we go again.
US Empire creating a pretext to go to war with Iran. It makes no sense that Iran would provoke a war with US Empire while Iran tries to salvage the nuclear deal with Europe. This situation looks manufactured as hell. The pro-war US media can’t wait to sell this.
One of the ships damaged in the attacks was Japanese-owned, and the other was bound for Japan. This happened just as Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was in Tehran attempting to negotiate a de-escalation between the US and Iran with Trump’s blessing , and just after Iran had
released a prisoner accused of conducting espionage for the US …
Iran has been conducting itself with
remarkable restraint in the face of relentless sanctions and provocations from the US and its allies; it wouldn’t make much sense for it to suddenly abandon that restraint with attacks on sea vessels, then
rescue their crew, then
deny perpetrating the attacks, during a time of diplomatic exchanges and while
trying to preserve the nuclear deal with Europe. …
7. Even if Iran did perpetrate the attack,
[Trump's] Pompeo would still be lying.
Pompeo’s
statement uses the words “unprovoked” twice and “Iran’s provocative acts” once, explicitly claiming that the US empire was just minding its own business leaving Iran alone when it was attacked out of the blue by a violent aggressor. Sometimes the things put out by the US State Department feel like they’re conducting experiments on us, just to test the limits of our stupidity.
As noted in
this article by Moon of Alabama and
this discussion on the Ron Paul Liberty Report, the
US has been provoking Iran with extremely aggressive and steadily tightening sanctions, which means that even if Tehran is behind the attacks, it would not be the aggressor and the attacks would most certainly not have been “unprovoked”. Economic sanctions
are an act of war; if China were to do to America’s economy what America is doing to Iran’s, the US would be in a hot war with China immediately. …
Either way, we have seen exactly zero evidence supporting Pompeo’s claims, … Knowing what we know about the US-centralized empire and its
pre-existing regime change agenda against Iran, there is no reason to believe Pompeo and many reasons not to.
