Mixed Messages in US on Striking Nonbelligerent Iran
Throughout Islamic Republic history, it never attacked another country, threatening none now except in self-defense — the legitimate right of all nations.
Trump regime war hawk Pompeo falsely blamed Iran for Saturday’s attack on key Saudi oil facilities — providing no credible evidence because none exists.
Is he pushing for war on the Islamic Republic? Sacked John Bolton urged it for years. Acting national security advisor Charles Kupperman is a Bolton clone, militantly hostile toward Iran.
Since the Houthis attacked key Saudi oil facilities on Saturday, Trump’s response was mixed – from “locked and loaded” to more measured comments, indicating he’s hesitant about confronting Iran militarily.
NYT reports were mixed, on the one hand suggesting Iran was “behind attacks on important Saudi Arabian oil facilities,” separately adding:
“(S)atellite…images indicated that the attack (came from) Iran or Iraq, not from Yemen (sic). The Saudis also said…their initial investigation (sic) showed that the attack had not come from Yemen (sic).”
Another Times report said “American officials have offered no evidence beyond the satellite photos, which analysts said were insufficient to prove where the attack came from, which weapons were used and who fired them,” adding:
“(S)ome security specialists say that the Houthis have greatly improved their drone and cruise missiles…”
In its latest edition, Times editors headlined “ ‘Locked and Loaded,’ but for What?”
“…Trump has few options, few allies (for war on Iran), a depleted national security team and little credibility,” they said, adding:
It’s “unclear…why Iran (would) escalat(e) regional tensions.” It’s very clear its actions are polar opposite — escalation a US, NATO, Israeli, Saudi specialty.
The Times: Trump “und(id) Obama’s legacy by abandoning a nuclear deal that had broad international support…withdrawal (backed only by) Saudi Arabia and Israel.”
At the same time, NYT editors accused Iran of “apparently rais(ing) the ante (sic), challenging the White House with a brazen attack on an ally (sic) and one of the world’s most important oil producers” — contradicting above quoted Times’ remarks.
The Washington Post claimed “Pentagon officials on Monday recommended a restrained response to the recent attacks on Saudi oil facilities, arguing against a potentially costly conflict with Iran, which the (Trump regime) blamed for the strike on a key American ally, according to officials familiar with (war) department deliberations.”
Separately WaPo said Trump is caught between hostility toward Iran and “an eagerness to deal.”
He also said “the Saudis are going to have a lot of involvement in this, if we decide to do something” — leaving them more vulnerable to destructive retaliation if they attack Iran militarily.
WaPo editors said Trump “dug himself into a hole with Iran. (After) trigger(ing) the crisis with his ‘maximum pressure’ campaign against Iran, (he) seems to have lost any ability to control it.”
WaPo editors falsely accused Tehran of “engag(ing) in aggression across the Middle East for years, including in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Syria” — a bald-faced Big Lie, how the US and its imperial partners operate, not Tehran.
They lied claiming “wherever (Saturday’s) attack on Saudi oil facilities) came from, very likely had Iranian sponsorship or support.” No evidence connects Tehran to what happened.
They urged US action against Iran in response to the weekend incident, adding “the best response may not be a military one.”
The “best” one is never taken, pursuing peace and stability instead of endless wars of aggression against nonbelligerent states threatening no one.
The Wall Street Journal headlined “US Tells Saudi Arabia Oil Attacks Were Launched From Iran,” saying:
“US intelligence indicates Iran was the staging ground for a debilitating attack on Saudi Arabia’s oil industry, people familiar with the matter said.”
The Journal failed to stress that no credible evidence indicates Iranian involvement with what happened — strong evidence that accusations otherwise are baseless.
A Final Comment
If launched, Trump regime war on Iran, including an attack on its energy facilities, would generate a strong IGRC response, including a likely strike on Saudi oil and gas operations.
If production and shipments of Middle East energy are greatly disrupted, the global economy will be greatly harmed by sharp price increases.
In 2007, the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco said five of the last seven US recessions “were preceded by considerable increases in oil prices,” Economic Collapse.com reported.
On Monday, oil jumped 15% higher. Damage to Saudi oil facilities reportedly will take months to repair.
The risk of protracted supply shortages could spike it much higher, posing a significant threat to a slowing global economy.
My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”