Seven Reasons to Doubt US Version of Gulf of Oman Incident
In a move that surprised exactly zero people, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has wasted no time scrambling to blame Iran for damage done to two sea vessels in the Gulf of Oman on Thursday, citing exactly zero evidence.
“This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the
level of expertise needed to execute the operation, recent similar
Iranian attacks on shipping, and the fact that no proxy group operating
in the area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a
high-degree of sophistication,” Pompeo told the press in a statement.
“The United States will defend its forces, interests, and stand with
our partners and allies to safeguard global commerce and regional
stability. And we call upon all nations threatened by Iran’s provocative
acts to join us in that endeavor,” Pompeo concluded before hastily
shambling off, taking exactly zero questions.
Here are seven reasons to be extremely skeptical of everything Pompeo said:
No. 1: 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.”
No. 2: The US empire is known to use lies and false flags to start wars.
The U.S.-centralized power alliance has an extensive and well-documented history of
advancing preexisting military agendas using lies, false flags and
psyops to make targeted governments appear to be the aggressors. This is
such a well-established pattern that “Gulf of Tonkin” briefly trended on Twitter after
the Gulf of Oman incident. Any number of government agencies could have
been involved from any number of the nations in this alliance,
including the U.S., the U.K., Saudi Arabia, the UAE or Israel.
No. 3: John Bolton has openly endorsed lying to advance military agendas.
I wrote an article about
this last month because the Trump 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 adviser. 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.
On a December 2010 episode of Fox News’ “Freedom Watch,” Bolton and the show’s host Andrew Napolitano were debating about recent WikiLeaks publications, and naturally the subject of government secrecy came up.
“Now I want to make the case for secrecy in government when it comes
to the conduct of national security affairs, and possibly for deception
where that’s appropriate,” 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.
No. 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 U.S. 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.
“Which leads me to conclude that if in fact compromise is not coming,
that the traditional way that America gets to war is what would be best
for U.S. interests,” Clawson added. “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? [Smattering of sociopathic
laughter from the crowd.] 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.”