Britain Split Over Gulf of Oman Incident

Britain Split Over Gulf of Oman Incident

by Stephen Lendman ( – Home – Stephen Lendman)

The Trump regime is selling war on Iran, not easily finding buyers among its allies, failing so far to achieve what acting war secretary Patrick Shanahan called the need to reach “international consensus” on blaming Tehran for the incident.

German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said the Pentagon’s (dubious) video evidence “is not enough. We can understand what is being shown, sure, but to make a final assessment, this is not enough for me.”

Through an aide, EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini expressed similar skepticism about the Trump regime’s claims.

Some US allies intend making their own intelligence assessments of what happened before rushing to judgment.

Trump lied saying the Gulf of Oman incident had “Iran written all over it.” On Friday, Britain’s Tory regime backed the Big Lie, falsely blaming Iran for what happened.

A Foreign Office statement turned truth on its head, saying “(i)t is almost certain (sic) that a branch of the Iranian military – the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – attacked the two tankers on 13 June (sic). No other state or non-state actor could plausibly have been responsible (sic),” adding:

“There is recent precedent for attacks by Iran against oil tankers (sic). The Emirati-led investigation of the 12 May attack on four oil tankers (in UAE waters) concluded that it was conducted by a sophisticated state actor. We are confident that Iran bears responsibility for that attack (sic).”

Separately, Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said “(t)hese latest attacks build on a pattern of destabilizing Iranian behavior (sic) and pose a serious danger to the region (sic),” adding: 

“It is essential that tankers and crews are able to pass through international waters safely. We call on Iran urgently to cease all forms of destabilizing activity (sic).” 

“The UK remains in close coordination with international partners to find diplomatic solutions to de-escalate tensions” it’s going all-out with Trump regime hardliners to heighten.

UK opposition Labor Party leader Jeremy Corbyn isn’t buying the Trump regime’s Big Lie, tweeting:

“Britain should act to ease tensions in the Gulf, not fuel a military escalation that began with US withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement,” adding:

“Without credible evidence about the tanker attacks, the government’s rhetoric will only increase the threat of war.”

Hunt slammed his remarks, calling them “pathetic and predictable…(W)hy can he never bring himself to back British allies, British intelligence or British interests?”

The UK partners with all US wars of aggression. It backs Israeli brutality against Palestinians, along with waging propaganda war on Russia — a reliable US partner against world peace and stability.

Iran strongly denied false Trump regime accusations. No credible evidence proves them because none exists.

Saudi energy minister Khalid al-Falih called for a “rapid and decisive response to the threat of energy supply, market stability and consumer confidence, which are posed by recent terrorist acts in both the Arabian Sea and the Arabian Gulf, against the major global energy supply chains” — what Iran had nothing to do with he failed to explain.

According to Arabia Foundation resident scholar Geneive Abdo, “Trump has already parted ways with (John) Bolton.”

A late May NYT report said guests with Trump at his Mar-a-Lago resort heard him “grousing” about Bolton, “complaining about the advice he was getting and wondering if Mr. Bolton was taking him down a path he did not want to go.”

Despite DJT’s hostility toward Iran, the Times said he broke with Bolton on how to deal with its ruling authorities, the same true for North Korea, Bolton pushing for war on both countries.

Aiming for reelection next year, Trump prioritizes policies he believes improves his prospects. War with Iran risking a quagmire and body bags returning home could lose him more support than already.

Replacing raging hawk Bolton would step back from possible war on Iran. According to the Times “Trump is not fond of Mr. Bolton, according to a half-dozen (unnamed) advisers and associates, and he makes no secret of it in private.”

They “differ sharply over their approach to the world.” Trump is a businessman prioritizing profits. One critic earlier slammed Bolton saying he never met a country he didn’t want to bomb.

“If it was up to John, we’d be in four (new) wars now,” an unnamed Trump regime official quoted him saying.

The Times cited another unnamed figure close to Trump, saying what’s going on between him and Bolton resembles how DJT soured on Rex Tillerson.

Whatever disagreements exist between them doesn’t diminish US hostility toward Iran. But replacing him would lower the temperature for war.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at


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

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: