Het is
Trump werkelijk geheel en al in de psychopathische vrouwonvriendelijke rotbol geslagen, de knurft zou Iran, nadat het een VS drone uit de
lucht haalde in eigen luchtruim, om een paar plekken te mogen bombarderen, plekken die van geen
belang zijn, aldus Elijah Magnier….. (Magnier is een echte Midden-Oosten deskundige en veteraan oorlogscorrespondent) Trump wilde dit om z’n gezicht te redden, zo stelt Magnier, een mening die de Britse ex-ambassadeur in Washington, Kim Darroch*, deelt.
Uiteraard
heeft Iran categorisch geweigerd aan dit verzoek te voldoen en heeft gesteld dat zelfs wanneer de VS een strand van Iran zou aanvallen dit als een
oorlogsdaad wordt gezien, waarop Iran terug zal slaan…….
Het
volgende artikel over het meer dan belachelijke voorstel van Trump werd eerder gepubliceerd op Moon of Alabama en werd door mij overgenomen van Information Clearing House en werd
geschreven door Moon of Alabama:
“Pretty
Please” – Trump Asked Iran To Allow Him To Bomb It
By
Moon Of Alabama
July
08, 2019 “Information
Clearing House” – On June 20 Iran shot down a U.S. spy
drone. U.S. President Trump decided not to retaliate. The White House
and the media claimed that Trump had ordered a strike on Iran but
pulled it back at the last minute. We said that this was
likely bullshit:
The
whole storyline of “a strike was ordered but Trump held back and
saved the day” might well be fake.
…
A strike in
retaliation for the downed drone may have never been on the table. An
alternative interpretation is that the U.S. sought agreement for a
symbolic ‘strike’ from Iran. It would hit some empty desert place to
allow Trump to save face. Iran would have disagreed with that plan.
The
British ambassador to the U.S., who’s briefings to
London leaked yesterday,
agrees with that take:
[Sir
Kim Darroch] questioned Trump’s recent claim that he aborted a
missile strike on Iran because it would have caused a predicted 150
casualties, saying it ‘doesn’t stand up’.
‘It’s
more likely that he
was never fully on board and
that he was worried about how this apparent reversal of his 2016
campaign promises would look come 2020′ – at the next Presidential
election.
Elijah
Magnier reported that
Trump had asked Iran to allow him to strike back, but was rebuffed:
According
to well-informed sources, Iran rejected a proposal by US intelligence
– made via a third party – that Trump be allowed to bomb one, two
or three clear objectives, to be chosen by Iran, so that both
countries could appear to come out as winners and Trump could save
face. Iran categorically rejected the offer and sent its reply: even
an attack against an empty sandy beach in Iran would trigger a
missile launch against US objectives in the Gulf.
An
Iranian general yesterday confirmed Magnier’s
take (also here):
A senior Iranian general has revealed that Washington, through diplomatic channels, recently asked Tehran to allow it to conduct a small-scale operation in the Iranian airspace in order to save its face following the IRGC’s shoot-down of a US spy drone.
Brigadier General Gholam Reza Jalali, the Head of Iran’s Civil Defence Organization, said Iran vehemently rejected the US request, saying that it will respond to any act of aggression.
“The
Islamic Republic of Iran responded that it views any operation as a
war and will give a crushing response to it. You may initiate a war
but this is Iran which will finish it,” he said Sunday.
The
idea that the U.S. would ask Iran to allow it to bomb some targets
without hitting back sounds crazy.
Dear
Mr. Rouhani,
could
you please name me three targets in your country that I am allowed to
bomb?
It
is urgent as I need to look tough on Iran.
Pretty
please!
Donald
Trump
But
this is the Trump White House and the only thing Trump really seems
to care for is his own rating.
Trump
wants a new nuclear deal with Iran. One with his signature, not
Obama’s, on it.
Trump’s
nuking of a deal while pressing for a new one shows that he has not
the slightest idea how Iran, or any other independent country, reacts
to such pressure. There will be no talks unless Trump rejoins the
deal and lifts the sanctions:
The
US sent over 60 diplomatic delegations to Iran as mediators to hold
talks with Iran but the leader of the Islamic Revolution rejected the
US calls for talks and Iran began to scale back its commitments under
the JCPOA.
The
Trump administration seems to have genuinely thought that Iran would
not react to its ever tightening sanctions by exceeding the technical
limits of the nuclear deal, which it now
does.
Back in November Secretary of State Pompeo opinedthat
Iran would not do this:
Asked
what the administration would do if the Iranians restart their
nuclear program, Pompeo replied, “We’re confident that Iranians
will not make that decision.”
That
was of course nonsensical. Why was Iran expected to stick to a deal
it does not benefit from? Such wishful
thinking has
no base in reality:
A
U.S. official familiar with the issue told POLITICO on Sunday that
the Trump team hopes for three things: that Europe imposes some
sanctions on Iran to keep it from further violating the deal; that a
financial mechanism the Europeans have set up to help Iran obtain
non-sanctioned goods succeeds; and that recent U.S. military
maneuvers in the Middle East are enough to deter Iran from further
military escalation.
“Fundamentally,
we want them to stay in the deal,” the U.S. official said, when
asked why the Trump administration wants the European financial
mechanism, known as INSTEX, to work. There’s no desire to engage in
an all-out war with Iran or see it build a nuclear weapon, the
official said.
Europe
is for now unlikely to
impose sanctions on Iran for a deal that Trump broke. If it does, the
whole JCPOA deal is off. INSTEX is a joke. It ‘allows’ Iran to barter
only something other than oil, and only against humanitarian goods
which are not under sanctions. It is worse than the 1990s oil for
food program that caused major economic destruction in Iraq. Iran
does not fear U.S. military might. U.S. military assets in the Middle
East do not deter. They are targets. Iran knows that Trump wants to
avoid a war.
The
little thought out U.S. policy gives Iran escalation dominance. It
can and will increase its nuclear activities, as it announced, every
60 days. Tankers and other interests of its enemies around the Gulf
will receive more damage. Trump will come under ever increasing
pressure. Iran’s actions, like the sabotage of some ships near
Fujairah, already show results:
[D]emand
for ship fuel at Fujairah, the United Arab Emirates coastal shipping
hub close to the Strait, has waned as some tankers stay away, traders
involved in the regional market said.
The
British ambassador expects
no change in
the confused White House policy on Iran:
One
memo, sent by Sir Kim on June 22, refers to ‘incoherent, chaotic’
US-Iran policy, adding: ‘Its unlikely that US policy on Iran is going
to become more coherent any time soon. This is a divided
Administration’.
But
the British policy on Iran is no better. On one side it is a
signatory of the nuclear deal with Iran and claims that it wants to
uphold it. On the other side it follows orders from the White House
and hijacks
a tanker that
carries Iranian oil which it claims is going to Syria. Britain has
absolutely no
legal basis to
do such. Even the former Swedish prime minister and rumored CIA asset
Carl Bildt finds that behavior too crude:
Carl
Bildt @carlbildt – 9:24
PM – 7 Jul 2019
The
legalities of the UK seizure of a tanker heading for Syria with oil
from Iran intrigues me. One refers to EU sanctions against Syria, but
Iran is not a member of EU. And EU as a principle doesn’t impose
its sanctions on others. That’s what the US does.
Iran’s
Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi called the
British act “robbery” and said that the ship was not
heading to Syria. Its real destination is said
to be “a
new southern European customer” for Iranian oil, probably Italy.
Iran’s Defense Minister Brigadier-General Amir Hatami promised to
respond to the British act of piracy.
As
usual the response will be asymmetrical and will come at a time and
place of Iran’s choosing.
This
article was originally published by “MOA”
–
=========================================
* Deze Darroch heeft afgelopen week zijn ontslag ingediend bij de Britse regering, nadat hij Trump volkomen terecht o.a. incompetent, chaotisch en onzeker noemde, waarop Trump in een Twittertirade o.a. stelde dat Darroch niet langer welkom is in het Witte Huis.
Zie ook:
‘VS stuurt 500 militairen naar Saoedi-Arabië als inzet tegen ‘Iraanse agressie’‘
‘Israël maakt zich op voor oorlog tegen Iran‘
‘De VS en niet Iran is een schurkenstaat‘
‘VS chanteert de wereld: geen olie import uit Iran, anders……..‘
‘VS verwijt Iran nucleaire chantage, chantage waar de VS zichzelf schuldig aan maakt‘
‘VS plant een bombardement op een Iraanse kerncentrale, verkennende VS drone neergeschoten‘
‘Kapitein Japans schip spreekt Trump administratie tegen over Iraanse kleefbom op zijn tanker‘
‘VS heeft stok ‘gevonden’ om oorlog tegen Iran te beginnen: Iran zou tankers hebben aangevallen‘
‘Twee olietankers aangevallen in Golf van Oman: VS oorlogsbodem in de buurt‘
US Continues to Escalate Tensions, Raising Fear of Imminent War With Iran
US Might Send 10,000 More Troops to Middle East
Yemen Be Damned, Pompeo Doubles Down on US Support for Saudi Arabia
‘Het verborgen motief achter de Israëlische agressie tegen Iran en Syrië‘
‘Protesten Iran opgezet door de VS en Israël‘
‘Iran, de protesten en wat de media je niet vertellen………‘
‘Lt. General McInerney says Obama helped build ISIS with Weapons from Benghazi‘
‘VS liegt schaamteloos om het westen verder op te zetten tegen Iran……..‘
‘Washington uit op oorlog met Iran……‘
‘Oliemaatschappijen weigeren n.a.v. VS sancties de jet van Iraanse minister af te tanken‘
‘Israël bezig met voorbereiding op meerdere fronten oorlog…….. (met hulp van de VS‘
‘John Bolton heeft beloofd dat Iran voor 2019 onder een ander regime zal leven…….‘
‘VS rechter gelast Iran miljarden te betalen aan de families van 911 slachtosoennieten zijnffers…..‘ (terwijl 9/11 niet werd uitgevoerd noch werd geregisseerd door Iran, waar ‘de daders’ ook nog eens soennieten zouden zijn en Iran hoofdzakelijk een sjiitisch land is)
‘Iran moet hangen en Iran-deal moet van tafel……. Israël speelt wolf in schaapskleren‘
‘VS ambtenaren: Israël zoekt steun VS voor oorlog tegen Iran…….‘
‘Iran houdt zich aan de nucleaire deal dit in tegenstelling tot de VS……..‘
