Just three weeks ago, when discussing geopolitical situation with Rafal Zaorski, we raised the subject of false flag threat. I am talking about the alleged attack of two tankers by Iran in the Gulf of Oman. One of them belonged to Norwegian, the other one to Japanese company. In the first place, mainstream media reported that the ships were attacked by torpedoes, later they talked about air attacks. Ultimately, explosion caused by mines has been reported. This version was considered as final, as media started to show pictures showing Iranians detaching an unexploded mine from one of the ships.
Were those photos real? Whether the disassembly really did Iranians wanting to get rid of the evidence or service of another country, it is not known. Or maybe they were really disassembled by the Iranians, who after the rescue operation, dismantled the mine (installed by foreign services) fearing that explosion will cause oil spillage and will devastate the Gulf.
How it really was is hard to say. We probably never find out. In any case, rightly or wrongly, media in the entire western world have stressed that Iran is responsible for everything.
Whole issue looks odd. Even conservative Bloomberg risked the statement that it could be a false flag operation, as such in the past has repeatedly been used as a pretext to attack an innocent country.
Similar situation was with Vietnam in 1964 when the USS Maddox ship was sent to the Gulf of Tonuna just to fake the attack on it and used it as justification to increase U.S. involvement in Vietnam.
Russian services did likewise, blowing up a few blocks of flats in Moscow to blame the Chechen terrorists and then without the public's resistance start the second war in rebellious republic.
Theory according to which a few maniacs controlled by Osama are able to kidnap several planes, and then use them as bullets also do not add up. Especially, when we are talking about the country which in 2001 on armaments and secret service spent more than other countries put together. Anyway, the attacks have been effectively used to start the never-ending war against terror, which can justify military intervention in every place on earth.
An interesting story about policy implementation has been described 12 years ago by Wesley Clark - a general of the American army, former commander of NATO forces.
In any case, from 7 countries that supposed to be invaded or the government to be changed, only Syria survived (country which over the last 5 years has been destroyed by the war) and Iran. It's worth taking a closer look at the latter one.
Iran has not attacked another country over the last 200 years. If it took part in the war, it was a result of an attack on Iran by a foreign power. From 1978, or the Iranian revolution, in Western media, the country is presented as the source of all evil, ruled by extreme radicals who largely support terrorism.
It is completely ignored that this country is one of the few that does not have a central bank managed by the BIS and that Western corporations are not benefiting from the sale of Iranian oil. Is that everything? Of course not.
The Prime Minister of Israel, Netanyahu, has been calling for a war with Iran for years. At recent conference in Warsaw, during conversation with journalists, he informed that meetings with representatives of Arab countries "concern the war with Iran." A moment later, there were voices that Benjamin Netanyahu was talking about "fighting Iran." Unfortunately, the word "war" also appeared on Israeli Prime Minister Twitter profile (quote was changed later).
The second biggest enemy of Iran in the region is Saudi Arabia, which as the main member of OPEC is the U.S. ally. It would seem that both countries have common religion. However, there is a fundamental difference between these two countries. In Iran, the majority are Shiites (law is subordinated to religion), in turn, Saudi Arabia is dominated by Sunni (more secular version of the state, such as in Turkey or UAE - although Saudi Arabia is closer to the Middle Ages). Believers of both religions approach each other with unusual hostility.
To clarify it a little, Saudi Arabia is a Western satellite since the time of Lawrence of Arabia. Virtually all of their oil returns go to American securities, and America can freeze them at any time and we will not even find out about the theft, because the case of these securities is not transparent. Saudi Arabia buys the vast majority of weapons in the U.S. and its satellite states without significant diversification, meaning their army can be shut down remotely. How high America values dependence of smaller countries' army on its weapons supplies is evidenced by the recent example of Turkey. After the S400 missile defense system purchase from Russia, United States has immediately urged Turkey to back off from this deal.
In addition, Saudi Arabia has no major industrial infrastructure or intellectual background. This is just a proxy for funding Islamists, building mosques in Europe, etc. If Saudis would start the war with Iran, they would be immediately doomed to failure. Mosques in Europe, separatists in the Second Chechen War, terrorists in Syria, and Muslim criminals from Kosovo were all financed by Saudi proxy. Not a bad achievement for a country that can not even develop one cryptologist, because his average citizen is illiterate.
In contrast, Shia Iran conducts a relatively rational policy. It must have some basics industry, because it can not buy a lot of military equipment due to sanctions. Thus, there must be some education system to train engineers. Iran can not stupidly provoke, because there is no big man behind it who will cry out "Why do you beat the little one!". So Iran must behave responsibly and rationally. We can not find that responsibility with Saudi's actions who are simply a Yankee's puppets.
Let us also take into consideration the religious minorities which in Shia Iran have their rights. For example the right to produce and consume non halal food (pork, alcohol), permanent representation in the parliament or a separate civil law. Jews in Iran are recognized minority and can practice their religion freely. There are 20 synagogues in Tehran itself. In Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, infidels can not pray quietly in private home, because they can end up in jail (from which with considerable probability they will never come back). Even constituting 15-20% of Saudi Arabia Shiites are persecuted in many ways (prohibition of building mosques, public prayers, arrests of priests and even condemning them to death). Judaism in Saudi Arabia is completely banned.
Returning to the Iran issue, situation in the region seemed to be under control until last year. In the Obama era, rules of nuclear energy development in Iran were negotiated in such a way that technology could not be used to produce nuclear weapons. Installations and laboratories were regularly audited by international envoys and no country reported any slightest deficiencies. At one point, due to Israeli lobby, Donald Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and withdrew the U.S. from the agreement with Iran.
Other countries protested, recognizing that U.S. policy would destabilize the region, but perhaps that was the goal. Moments later, United States began to impose sanctions on both Iran and countries and companies involved in trade with Tehran. In response to U.S. policy and passive resistance of other countries being signatories of the nuclear agreement, Iran has announced that it will not prolong 60-day ultimatum that it gave to the member states after breaking the deal with the U.S.. Objectively looking, why Iran would respect any resolutions if the U.S. breaks the agreement for no reason and other members of the UN security council do not have a real impact.
Anyway, recently tensions in the Gulf has been strongly growing. Situation is very similar to Saddam's campaign in 2003, when U.S. together with NATO attacked this sovereign country after intense PR campaign accusing Iraqi authorities of producing chemical weapons (which has never been found) and connections with Al-Qaeda, which has also never been proven. At this point, it is worth to add that, it is Hillary Clinton who has supported Al-Qaeda and it has happened during the U.S. military intervention in Libya.
To make matters worse, the United Kingdom has already joined Trump's campaign, which is based on secret service information stating that Iran is behind tankers attack in the Gulf of Oman. The same secret service had "evidence" for the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
Saudi Arabia also quickly stated that Iran is responsible for the attack, while claiming that they do not want regional war, but will protect their interests. How important these interests are we can find out in Yemen where bombing led to humanitarian catastrophe resulting in the death of about 100,000 children under the age of 5.
As they say, "truth is the first victim of war." In any case, can Iran really threaten anyone? Answer can give following graphic depicting U.S./NATO bases in the region and "sense of security" of the Iranians.
Anyway, Iran is already facing serious economic problems as a result of sanctions. Inflation exceeded 50% and there is no indication that the situation will calm down. What's more, Iran would have nothing to gain from attacking Norwegian or Japanese tanker.
Firstly, the "alleged" attack on the Japanese ship was carried out during Japan's prime minister visit to Tehran. Representatives of both countries have met at such a high level before over 40 years ago.
Secondly, any Iranian aggression could be used to impose further sanctions by U.S. allies because Washington seek to economically destabilize this country.
Thirdly, Iran is surrounded by U.S. bases, and what's worse it is within the range of Israel's nuclear warheads, which may have about 400, but nobody knows how it really is because Israel is the only one not subject to any control by international agencies.
There is theoretically one benefit which Iran could take out of the incident. These are higher oil prices that would increase profits from the sale of Iranian oil on the black market. However, to achieve this in the right way, it would be necessary to arrange an "accidental" collision in the Strait of Hormuz (33 km wide), through which approximately 30% of global oil production is transported. Any incident would lead to oil prices going up twice in a few days.
Who is really behind the attacks we can only speculate. In my opinion, 99% it was not Iran. It was a country or group of interests (most likely), which want to initiate a war between the U.S. (NATO) and Iran. War is a business, and Trump despite 2.5 years being in the office has not started a new war. Military-industrial complex apparently has a problem with that. War means hundreds of billions of profit. Weapon manufacturers earn money by selling it to both sides of the conflict. Financial sector also earns by providing extremely expensive loans for the purchase of weapons. Eventually, one earns from the reconstruction of destroyed country. As in the case of Yemen, no one cares about human tragedies.
Movie which I uploaded on the channel 4 years ago perfectly captures this:
However, I have an impression that those who are so willing to fight with Iran do not appreciate the scale of the threat. Iran is not Iraq or Libya. It's over 80 million educated and well-armed Persians. Although, this country does not have nuclear weapons (at least officially) it is able to successfully attack Israel, if provoked. In such a scenario, Russia and China will probably stand with Iran. NATO will support Israel and we have a scenario in which increases or decreases on stock exchanges will be our smallest concern.
In order not to end negatively, I wanted to share some insight. Well, slowly in some of mainstream channels, really reliable analyzes begin to appear, which block politicians' inclinations to escalate conflicts or provoke wars.
According to Bloomberg (opinion issued on 13th June) the recent attacks on tankers were nothing but the false flag operation. "Iran has little to achieve by attacks on tankers in the Gulf of Oman," said Julian Lee in Bloomberg.
Also interesting is an article describing how the U.S. escalates attacks on Russian energy networks, including nuclear power plant. If that was me, I would have been called the Russian troll again. Fortunately, it was the New York Times who wrote about it. It is true that Trump immediately accused the newspaper of treason, but this type of articles and public pressure may eventually make the most important politicians sit at the table like Regan and Gorbachev did and end the endless arms race.