Editor: Chris Menahan from InformationLiberation is doing an excellent job at digging into the threat of war with Iran. I have compiled 3 of his latest articles here so that readers can assess what is really going on. Who really wants war with Iran? Trump? Or his Deep State associates?
President Trump probably does not want a war with Iran — but do his wants have any influence over policy at this point?
President Trump has told his acting defense secretary, Patrick Shanahan, that he does not want to go to war with Iran, according to several administration officials, in a message to his hawkish aides that an intensifying American pressure campaign against the clerical-led government in Tehran must not escalate into open conflict.take our poll - story continues below
Mr. Trump’s statement, during a Wednesday morning meeting in the Situation Room, came during a briefing on the rising tensions with Iran. American intelligence has indicated that Iran has placed missiles on small boats in the Persian Gulf, prompting fears that Tehran may strike at United States troops and assets or those of its allies.
How dare Persians armed boats off their own coast in the Persian Gulf!
Iran putting boats in the Persian Gulf is an act of aggression — the US sending aircraft carriers across the Atlantic is an act of self-defense!
No new information was presented to the president at the meeting that argued for further engagement with Iran, according to a person in the room. But Mr. Trump was firm in saying he did not want a military clash with the Iranians, several officials said.
On Thursday, Mr. Trump was asked during a visit by the Swiss president, Ueli Maurer, whether the United States was going to war with Iran.
“I hope not,” he replied.[…] The Pentagon last week presented Mr. Trump with options to send up to 120,000 troops to the Middle East, if Iran attacked American forces or accelerated its work on nuclear weapons. The options were ordered by Mr. Bolton, who has kept an unusually tight grip on the policymaking process for a national security adviser.
Mr. Bolton, officials said, has quietly voiced frustration with the president, viewing him as unwilling to push for changes in a region that he has long seen as a quagmire. That, in turn, has led people in the White House to view Mr. Bolton with deepening skepticism, with some questioning whether his job is in trouble.
Mr. Trump also is impatient with another of Mr. Bolton’s major campaigns: the effort to oust President Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela. After the opposition’s failed attempt to peel away key Maduro allies and turn the Venezuelan military against him, Mr. Maduro appears harder to dislodge than ever.
Great job, Johnny boy!
Sorry. No data so far.
Is President Trump trying to deescalate the situation or does this mean the time will be right only after our “allies” stage a false flag?
I don’t think Trump wants a war with Iran, but it doesn’t seem like he’s even running the show anymore.
President Trump is frustrated with some of his top advisers, who he thinks could rush the United States into a military confrontation with Iran and shatter his long-standing pledge to withdraw from costly foreign wars, according to several U.S. officials. Trump prefers a diplomatic approach to resolving tensions and wants to speak directly with Iran’s leaders.
Disagreements over assessing and responding to the recent intelligence — which includes a directive from Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that some American officials interpret as a threat to U.S. personnel in the Middle East — are also fraying alliances with foreign allies, according to multiple officials in the United States and Europe.
“[S]ome officials interpret as a threat.”
That translates to: “This is made up bulls**t which no one believes.”
This Onion satire was dead on:
— The Onion (@TheOnion) May 15, 2019
Every time the US threatens to attack Iran and Iran responds by saying they’ll defend themselves, their statement is reported as a threat to attack America.
We see this same BS from our lying media over and over again.
Trump grew angry last week and over the weekend about what he sees as warlike planning that is getting ahead of his own thinking, said a senior administration official with knowledge of conversations Trump had regarding national security adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
“They are getting way out ahead of themselves, and Trump is annoyed,” the official said. “There was a scramble for Bolton and Pompeo and others to get on the same page.”
Bolton, who advocated regime change in Iran before joining the White House last year, is “just in a different place” from Trump, although the president has been a fierce critic of Iran since long before he hired Bolton. Trump “wants to talk to the Iranians; he wants a deal” and is open to negotiation with the Iranian government, the official said.
“He is not comfortable with all this ‘regime change’ talk,” which to his ears echoes the discussion of removing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein before the 2003 U.S. invasion, said the official, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.
It’s nearly an exact repeat of Iraq, with most of the same players. All they need is a spectacular false flag to justify the attack.
National Security Council spokesman Garrett Marquis said, “This reporting doesn’t accurately reflect reality.”
Trump is not inclined to respond forcefully unless there is a “big move” from the Iranians, a senior White House official said. Still, the president is willing to respond forcefully if there are American deaths or a dramatic escalation, the official said.
That’s a nice way to signal to our “allies” that the time is right to stage a false flag. Similar happened with the attack on Syria, which an alleged newly leaked OPCW report suggested was staged.
— Moon of Alabama (@MoonofA) May 14, 2019
The Post continues:
Trump’s anger over what he considered a more warlike footing than he wanted was a main driver in Pompeo’s decision last weekend to suddenly cancel a stop in Moscow and on short notice fly instead to Brussels, where he sought meetings on Monday with the European nations that are parties to the Iran nuclear deal, two officials said. Pompeo was not accorded the symbolic welcome of joining their joint Iran-focused meeting. Instead, he met with foreign ministers one by one.
Pompeo’s visit was meant to convey both U.S. alarm over the recent intelligence on Iran and Washington’s desire for diplomacy, not war, two officials said.
But European leaders, who have been watching the febrile atmosphere in Washington with alarm, have not been convinced, according to conversations with 10 European diplomats and officials from seven countries, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive assessments of Washington and Tehran.
Pompeo “didn’t show us any evidence” about his reasons Washington is so concerned about potential Iranian aggression, said one senior European official who took part in one of Pompeo’s meetings. The official’s delegation left the meeting unconvinced of the American case and puzzled about why Pompeo had come at all.
British General Maj. Gen. Chris Ghika told reporters at the Pentagon on Tuesday that “there’s been no increased threat from Iranian-backed forces,” Common Dreams reports.
“We monitor them along with a whole range of others because that’s the environment we’re in,” said Maj. Gen. Chris Ghika, speaking via video from Baghdad. “If the threat level seems to go up then we’ll raise our force protection measures accordingly.”
— M27 (@M27Unchained) May 14, 2019
Our government and media — while the government surrounds Iran with aircraft carriers and threatens an invasion — are hilariously acting like it will just be a matter of happenstance if we “stumble” or “slide” into a war.
Tucker Carlson spoke out against the prospect of a war with Iran on Tuesday night during an interview with Colonel Douglas Macgregor.
“How is a war with Iran in America’s interest in any way?” Tucker asked.
“We’ve got a manufactured crisis,” Macgregor said. “There’s nothing new in this intelligence [which was given to the US by Israel – ed]. We’ve been operating in this area for several years now, the Iranians and we, we were both interested in destroying the same target, ISIS.”
“It’s hard to buy the notion that we now have to have a Carrier Battle Group in the Persian Gulf, along with hundreds of aircraft flying in from all over the world in order to deter Iran from attacking us,” Macgregor said.
“There’s no evidence that Iran wants to attack us. Quite the contrary, I think they’d like very much to avoid any conflict with us under any and all circumstances.”
Tucker said “the usual suspects” agitating for war — neocons like Max Boot and Bill Kristol — do not “have the country’s interests at heart.”
Transcript via RCP:
TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS: More than anything in the world, National Security adviser, John Bolton would love to have a war with Iran. It would be like Christmas, Thanksgiving, and his birthday wrapped into one.
Well, mercifully, John Bolton doesn’t command the military. President Trump does. The question is how influential is Bolton in the White House?
Just last week, Bolton announced a Carrier Strike Force was being sent to the Persian Gulf to check Iran. Now the “New York Times” reports that the President has been presented with a plan to deploy 120,000 American troops to the Middle East. The President says that report is untrue.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you planning to send 120,000 troops to the Middle East in response to Iran?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: I think it’s fake news, okay. Now would I do that? Absolutely. But we not planned for that. Hopefully, we’re not going to have to plan for that, and if we did that, we would send a hell of a lot more troops than that.
CARLSON: Okay, so obviously, this is fluid, but the larger question remains unanswered. How is a war with Iran in America’s interest in any way?
It’s time to start asking answering that question. Douglas MacGregor is a retired Army Colonel, author of the tremendous book, “A Margin of Victory,” and a frequent guest in the show. He joins us today. Colonel, thanks very much for coming on.
COLONEL DOUGLAS MACGREGOR, RET.,U.S. ARMY: Sure.
CARLSON: So what does it mean to have a Carrier Group in the Persian Gulf?
MACGREGOR: Well, Tucker, we’ve got a manufactured crisis. There’s nothing new in this intelligence. We’ve been operating in this area for several years now, the Iranians and we, we were both interested in destroying the same target, ISIS.
MACGREGOR: And we always knew there was friction and hostility there. We’ve managed to avoid any problems. The Iranians have avoided any problems. So it’s hard to buy the notion that we now have to have a Carrier Battle Group in the Persian Gulf, along with hundreds of aircraft flying in from all over the world in order to deter Iran from attacking us.
There’s no evidence that Iran wants to attack us. Quite the contrary, I think they’d like very much to avoid any conflict with us under any and all circumstances.
CARLSON: So why would we — why are we doing this? And what are the potential consequences of doing it?
MACGREGOR: Well, I think the people that were behind this that persuaded the President to take these actions are hoping, frankly, that if you put large numbers of forces from the United States in close proximity to Iran in a small area like the Persian Gulf — the Gulf is only 220 miles wide — that something will happen, that something will go wrong.
It sort of looks like a Gulf of Tonkin incident with missiles in the making. Now, do we benefit? It’s hard to see how. I mean, the first question you should always ask before any action is taken, measure what you might gain by what you might lose. What do we gain? Is this supposed to persuade the Iranians that they should not keep some additional enriched uranium? Is this designed to make them capitulate to the series of demands that Mr. Pompeo put in front of them?
If so, I think that’s ludicrous. I don’t see any evidence of that happening. Is this designed to drive a wedge between Russia and China? On the opposite, I think you’re going to forced cohesion on all of the great continental powers against us. They’re going to look at any action we might take against Iran as a precursor to future action we may take against them.
So I don’t see the President gaining from this, but I see that he loses. I don’t see how he gets reelected. I don’t see how he achieves anything in the Gulf that is positive whatsoever for the United States and the American people.
CARLSON: But there in our foreign policy establishment, it is a fairly large group, relatively speaking, a large group of people who are intent on a war with Iran.
MACGREGOR: Yes, well, unfortunately, in the case of General McKenzie, who spoke not long ago in front of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, he described himself as a man with a bias for action. I’d much rather have a four-star with a bias for thinking. And right now, he should be very concerned about the secondary effects of anything we do in the Gulf.
The Russians are not idle. They are watching this very carefully. If we take action, and we get into a killing spree with the Iranians, they will come in, and we will find ourselves without a backdoor to get out easily.
The Chinese will also ship what they can, and by the way, the Turks who have no love for the Iranians may view this as something positive that they should participate in. This is not a good thing for the United States.
CARLSON: And the people agitating for it right now — MSNBC, CNN, Max Boot, Bill Kristol — the usual suspects, none of whom have the country’s interests at heart, I would argue. I mean, it’s chilling.
President Trump said late last year he’d like to pull out of the Middle East entirely but Israel is “one reason” to stay. Trump also said he supports the Saudis because they provide a “counterbalance to Iran” and “without them, Israel would be in a lot more trouble.”
Your Daily Briefing:
Fight Online Censorship!
Get the news Google and Facebook don't want you to see: Sign up for DC Dirty Laundry's daily briefing and do your own thinking!