|While many were hoping against all odds that a Trump administration would live up to some of its campaign rhetoric and begin to back away from imperialistic foreign adventures, it seems those hopes are being dashed by the day as Trump and his team are giving every indication that they are moving toward war with Iran.
Even on the campaign trail, Trump expressed irrational anti-Iran sentiment suggesting that the Iran nuclear deal signed with the Obama administration was “terrible” and that the United States was essentially forced to pay Iran not to build a bomb. Of course, this rhetoric was nothing but fantasy since the only loser in the deal was the Iranians, who were never in violation of any international provisions against nuclear proliferation, did not have a nuclear weapon, a nuclear weapons program, or even the ability to create one. In reality, Iran never should have had to sign any deal with the world’s self-appointed guard dog. Still, Trump represented the release of Iran’s frozen assets as extortion (against the United States no less). For those who are unaware, the money that was allegedly “paid” to Iran was actually Iranian money the United States had frozen in the past as a result of prior fits of war hysteria.
This anti-Iran policy came to the forefront a week ago when National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, rabid anti-Iran warmonger, gave a surprise performance of typical Western war froth in front of the cameras about the “emboldened” Iran and the danger it presents to America and its allies. He also suggested that Iran has not been “thankful” to the United States for apparently not invading them as it has done to Iran’s neighbors and allies over the past sixteen years.
Flynn stated that the United States is officially “putting Iran on notice.” Thus, it seems that the United States is setting its sights on the next piece of the geopolitical puzzle before the ultimate goal of Russia and world hegemony is to be recognized.
Recent Iranian actions, including a provocative ballistic missile launch and an attack against a Saudi naval vessel conducted by Iran-supported Houthi militants, underscore what should have been clear to the international community all along about Iran's destabilizing behavior across the Middle East.Flynn cited only two justifications for his threat, neither of which are logical or anything but unproven allegations. First, Flynn attributed an alleged attempted missile attack on U.S. Naval ships parked off the coast of Yemen supposedly committed by Houthi Rebels. Second, Flynn argues that a recent ballistic missile test conducted by Iran violates the P5+1 and United Nations backed nuclear deal.
Flynn claimed that Iran has recently become “emboldened” because the Obama administration, the same administration which forced Iran to decimate their nuclear power program at the barrel of a gun, was “weak and ineffective.”
“In these and other similar activities, Iran continues to threaten US friends and allies in the region,” Flynn stated. Translation: Iran’s existence and refusal to knuckle under to foreign dictates represents a threat to the impunity of Saudi Arabia and Israel.
In regards to Flynn’s statements, it is important to note that the Iranophobic warmonger leaves out a number of points. First, Flynn lays the blame of Houthi missile attacks at the feet of Iran because, according to him, Iran somehow controls the Houthis or, at the very least, supports them. While it would be naïve to believe that the Houthis are receiving no support from outside forces, the fact is that there is absolutely no evidence that Iran is doing so. Indeed, the alleged missile attacks themselves are highly questionable, with some believing that they were actually a false flag on the part of the United States in order to justify a bombing campaign in Yemen on a flimsy basis of self-defense. This basis is flimsy because the United States does, after all, have its ships right off the coast of Yemen and it is supporting the Saudi war of aggression.
Second, if the Iranians are now guilty because of unproven claims of support for Houthi rebels who are themselves only acting in self-defense against a brutal and horrific Saudi campaign of terror, murder, and starvation against the people of Yemen, then the United States is officially complicit in the beheading of young children, rape, torture, starvation, and cannibalism as a result of their support for “moderate” terrorists in Syria. Of course, the latter statement is actually true since it is the United States who funds, trains, supplies, and directs the terrorist proxies in Syria to this day.
Not only that, even if the Houthis did fire on American boats, it must be remembered that the United States is aiding the country who is invading theirs and thus makes itself a reasonable military target when stationed so close to Yemeni shores.
Still, one must pay attention to the logic: “We supported a country in a war of aggression against a rag tag group of rebels and those rebels attempted (possibly) to fight back. Therefore, we must threaten a third party whom we cannot even prove supports the rebels.”
In regards to the ballistic missile test, the new aggression is being based upon tests conducted by Iran over the weekend on a medium-range ballistic missile.
Yet, for all the brow-beating of the United States since the Iranian nuclear deal was signed, the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 does not prohibit Iran from testing a missile or a ballistic missile. There is a provision which “calls on” Iran not to undertake any activity that relates to ballistic missiles but “calling on” and “prohibiting” are two different things. As Daniel McAdams of the Ron Paul Institute writes, “There are no specific provisions in the nuclear deal that explicitly prevent Iran from testing a missile.”
Who Is Michael Flynn?
Flynn has been so anti-Iran in the past that his subordinates were both confused and alarmed. In 2012, after the Benghazi attack, Flynn began demanding that those under his command at the Defense Intelligence Agency immediately produce evidence that Iran was behind the attack. If that kind of frantic framing of false intelligence sounds familiar, that’s because it is. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ordered a similar intelligence agency initiative in the wake of 9/11 in order to blame Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
Flynn was even fired from the DIA in 2014 for being too anti-Iran even for the Obama administration, a truly amazing feat in its own right.
“Adding together President Trump's call to the Saudi king, where they discussed Iran's "destabilizing" actions, and a pre-emptive war authorization bill languishing in the US House, the current danger of a US strike on Iran is just an accident -- or a false flag – away,” writes McAdams.
Flynn was head of the DIA at the time when the now famous memo was produced explaining the fact that Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and other Gulf States as well as the United States were supporting terrorism in Syria and Iraq and that Russia, Syria, and Iran were fighting it. The memo also described the plan and support for creating a “salafist principality” in the east of Syria and West of Iraq, the precise location where ISIS created its caliphate. For this reason, Flynn cannot claim ignorance as to whom is actually supporting terrorism and who is fighting it.
The Path To Persia
The plan for a Western or a Western/Israeli attack on Iran, along with the theatre of alleged US-Israeli tensions leading up to a strike and outright war, has been in the works for some time. For instance, in 2009, the Brookings Institution, a major banking, corporate, and military-industrial firm, released a report entitled “Which Path To Persia? Options For A New American Strategy For Iran,” in which the authors mapped out a plan which leaves no doubt as to the ultimate desire from the Western financier, corporate, and governing classes.
The plan involves the description of a number of ways the Western oligarchy would be able to destroy Iran including outright military invasion and occupation. However, the report attempts to outline a number of methods that might possibly be implemented before direct military invasion would be necessary. The plan included attempting to foment destabilization inside Iran via the color revolution apparatus, violent unrest, proxy terrorism, and “limited airstrikes” conducted by the US, Israel or both.
Interestingly enough, the report states that any action taken against Iran must be done after the idea that Iran has rejected a fair and generous offer by the West has been disseminated throughout the general public. The report reads,
…any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context— both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.Ironically, it is admitted by the authors of the report that the Iranians are not governed by lunatics intent on nuking the world but by entirely rational players. Still, they move forward with a number of options for attacking Iran. It should thus be obvious to anyone reading this report that the US, NATO, and Israel are uninterested in peace with Iran and are entirely focused on war and Iranian destruction.
“The so-called "Iran deal," introduced during the administration of US President Barack Obama, represents precisely this "superb offer," with Flynn's accusations serving as the "turn down" ahead of the "sorrowful" war and attempted regime change the US had always planned to target Tehran with,” writes Tony Cartalucci of Land Destroyer Report.
The report continues to discuss the citations that could be used for an attack on Iran, clearly stating its intentions to create a plan to goad a non-threatening nation into war. It states,
The truth is that these all would be challenging cases to make. For that reason, it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)The question of the Israeli role in the possible attack against Iran is also mentioned by Brookings. In fact, in the chapter entitled, “Allowing or Encouraging An Israeli Military Strike,” Brookings not only outlines a potential strategy but essentially admits that the US-Israeli tension being hyped in the Western media is nothing more than a farce. It says,
...the most salient advantage this option has over that of an American air campaign is the possibility that Israel alone would be blamed for the attack. If this proves true, then the United States might not have to deal with Iranian retaliation or the diplomatic backlash that would accompany an American military operation against Iran. It could allow Washington to have its cake (delay Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon) and eat it, too (avoid undermining many other U.S. regional diplomatic initiatives).Why Iran?
There are a number of reasons why the United States and the NATO imperial army would like to see Iran destroyed over the coming years. Geopolitical reasons are, of course, front and center.
On one level, the Israeli connection stands as one obvious reason the United States has maintained an anti-Iran posture for nearly two decades. Iran not only stands as a regional opponent to the whims and aims of the Israeli settler state, but it also bankrolls and supports one of the greatest forces of opposition to Israel directly due to its close proximity and the militia’s military prowess. Indeed, Israel was humiliated by Hezbollah in front of the world in 2006. Thus, if Iran is destroyed, Hezbollah goes with it and two of Israel’s biggest and most effective opponents disappear from the game board.
The United States also sees Iran as an opponent due to Iran’s resistance to the Anglo-American insistence on global hegemony of its “western” system of financial and corporate overseers in a plantation owned by a world oligarchy. Iran stands in opposition to the Western system because it refuses to engage in a system private central banking as well as corporate and private financier domination of its society and culture. Maintaining its own national bank has long been a source of irritation for Wall Street and City of London vampires eager to sink their fangs into the blood supply of every nation on earth. In addition, Iran has recently announced that it will be dropping the U.S. dollar for some other currency or basket of currencies beginning March 21, a sure sign that a Western war of aggression is most definitely on the horizon.
Iran also remains a close Russian ally and the last domino that needs to fall before the great Anglo-American army can march forward directly into Russia and break the largest country in the world into “manageable” parts. Once Iran is destroyed, Russia will be largely isolated and left to face the NATO alliance which has been slowly surrounding Russia over the last two decades.
So far, the Iranian response has been marked by unwise mirror bans of American travelers, an entrenchment and reassertion of national sovereignty, and a much more serious announcement that Iran will dump the U.S. dollar. While Iran would have been much better suited to respond to the Trump travel ban in the same way the Russians responded to Obama’s idiotic expulsion of Russian diplomats, it seems American sabre rattling will do nothing now but encourage Iran’s population to possibly look toward more “hardliners” in terms of elected government. By hardliners, we mean politicians who campaign on an Anti-American platform and who take a more stern approach to foreign affairs. After all, those who have argued that the United States can be reasoned with are slowly being proven wrong. The question then becomes whether or not the collision course the United States wants to set out on becomes a path Iran unwittingly follows.
The Trump Administration’s false labeling of Iran as the biggest sponsor of terrorism, ignoring the fact that Iran is one of the most important players in the fight against ISIS and Sunni Islamic extremism in the Middle East as well as the fact that American ally Saudi Arabia is perhaps the biggest purveyor of terrorism in the world, tells everyone what we need to know going forward – the plan to destroy Iran is marching forward without a hitch in another example of seamless transition.
Lastly, for the Trump apologists, we would ask “Does the possibility that Trump has no control over his own military and foreign policy seem like a more palatable option?” At this point, having a President opposed to war is largely meaningless if he cannot do anything to stop it. Of course, Trump’s rhetoric throughout the political campaign was clearly anti-Iranian of the fanatical variety so the possibility that Trump is actually anti-war, at least in terms of Iran, is extremely unlikely. In fact, it is so unlikely as to no longer warrant consideration.
That being said, we must immediately begin to mobilize to oppose the Trump administration war posturing towards Iran and do whatever we can to prevent the current situation from shifting towards an actual physical war. Whatever positive elements of the Trump administration there may be must be prevailed upon to stop this madness. At the same time, we must be prepared to demonstrate, oppose, strike, and otherwise refuse to participate in anymore imperialistic wars should that agenda actually take shape. Aside from the obvious moral issues of bombing and destroying a nation of innocent people for a geopolitical agenda, war with Iran is a step toward war with Russia and World War Three and, at the very least, another vast waste of American treasure and the lives of military service personnel. It must be stopped at all costs.
 Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books. 1997. Pp. 202.