 |
Trump’s National Security Adviser Puts Iran “On Notice;” Foreshadowing Of War
|
The new boss is now starting to look extremely similar to the old
boss. Today, February 2, Donald Trump’s National Security Advisor,
rabid anti-Iran warmonger, Michael Flynn, delivered a
stern and open warning to Iran, 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.
Flynn cited only two justifications for his threat, neither of which
are logical or anything but unproven allegations. First, Flynn is
attributing 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.”
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.
Researcher Tony Cartalucci of Land Destroyer Report makes Flynn’s bizarre statements clearer by writing,
As Flynn furiously flipped through the pages of his
statement, he was signifying the predictable betrayal of the so-called
“Iran deal,” meant before it was even introduced the public – as early
as 2009 – to serve as a pretext not for peace, but for war with Iran.
US corporate-financier funded think tank, the Brookings Institution, in a 2009 policy paper titled, “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran” (.pdf) would lay out in detail various means of provoking war and regime change against Iran.
In it, Brookings explicitly revealed how a “superb offer”
would be given to Iran, only to be intentionally revoked in a manner
portraying Iran as ungrateful:
…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.
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.
In fact, Flynn would seemingly draw almost verbatim from the ploy described by Brookings in 2009, by stating:
Instead of being thankful to the United States for these
agreements, Iran is now feeling emboldened … As of today, we are
officially putting Iran on notice.
Flynn’s statement is particularly surreal – considering
Yemeni fighters are only targeting Saudi warships because Saudi Arabia
is currently waging full-scale war on Yemen. Accused on all sides of war
crimes, and with the US itself even restricting weapon sales to Riyadh –
if only symbolically – in response to Saudi Arabia’s aggression – Flynn
still claims that the attack on Saudi Arabia’s warship constitutes
justification for putting Iran “on notice.”
Claiming that Iran is “sponsoring terrorism” throughout
the region, when it is currently a major member of the coalition
fighting the DIA’s “Salafist principality” in both Iraq and Syria is
also surreal.
While the goal was originally to topple Syria as Libya was destroyed
previously before moving on to Iran and then to Russia, it appears now
that perhaps, with Syria so significantly weakened, the country no
longer provides an immediate military resistance to the NATO war machine
and Iran, having been weakened by its necessary involvement in the
Syrian crisis, can be moved up on the chopping block.
[1]
Cartalucci writes, “Meanwhile, the political climate in
the West has been so expertly manipulated that the public is either so
distracted with identity politics that they are unaware and unconcerned
with the prospect of war with Iran, or so hysterical over “Islam” that
any nation perceived as being Muslim is seen as justifiably a target of
US military aggression – regardless of how divergent any of these
alternate realities are from actual reality.”
In the past, it was assumed that, with a Republican President, the
American people get a new war and an anti-war movement but, with a
Democrat, Americans just get a new war. While many in the real anti-war
community have expected anti-war protesters to pop up out of the blue
with the election of a Republican President, this time might be
different. This time, American “leftist” protesters are so concerned
with continuing abortions, sex changes, and racial identity that they
are less likely to find the time to protest wars overseas, even if it is
an attempt to be trendy as opposed to a real moral conviction. The
right-wing, however, never seeing a war it didn’t like and already so
radicalized against “Islam” and Iran, will be primed to support the war
effort in full.
Flynn’s warning represents two possibilities. At best, Trump has no
control over his own military. At worst, the Trump administration is
nothing but a clear continuation of the Obama and Bush regime’s agenda
of Anglo-American world hegemony. Judging by Trump’s appointments to
cabinet positions, we are not hopeful. Unfortunately, judging by today’s
threats, we are also not filled with hope in our desire for peace and
reason to prevail.
[1] Brzezinski, Zbigniew. “The Grand Chessboard: America Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives.” Basic Books. 1st Edition, 1998.
Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 andvolume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President.
Turbeville has published over 850 articles on a wide variety of
subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil
liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be
found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.
Jesuits Own 51% of the Bank of America
