International Consensus Did Nothing to Prevent War in Iraq but Can It Save Iran?

International Consensus Did Nothing to Prevent War in Iraq but Can It Save Iran?

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are strictly those of the writer. 

The US regime has claimed that Iran attacked a tanker, the Kokura Courageous, with a mine, even producing video of people they claim are Iranian removing a mine from the tanker.  This is in contradiction to the reports from eyewitnesses.

“We received reports that something flew towards the ship,” said Yutaka Katada, president of Kokaku Sangyo Co. at a press conference. “The place where the projectile landed was significantly higher than the water level, so we are absolutely sure that this wasn’t a torpedo. I do not think there was a time bomb or an object attached to the side of the ship.”

However, immediately following the attacks, with absolutely no factual proof, Pompeo issued a statement blaming Iran. “It is the assessment by the United States government that the Islamic Republic of Iran is responsible for the attacks that occurred in the Gulf of Oman today,” Pompeo said in specially scheduled remarks at the State Department on Thursday, as investigations into the attacks were beginning.

Pompeo continued, “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.”

Unfortunately, the US state terrorism against Iraq, and the intentional regime change in Iraq which ended Saddam Hussein’s reign, supports this type of behavior being consistent with US goals. tweet

So, perhaps that means we can safely say, “Our assessment, based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed to execute the operation, recent similar attacks by the US in the Middle East, and the fact that no proxy group operating in the area has the resources and proficiency or motive of the US military to act with such a high degree of sophistication supports unequivocally and categorically that it was in all likelihood a state actor that staged this attack, namely the US government.”

The “Similar” Attack

The incident bears similarities to an attack on May 12, when four oil tankers were targeted off the coast of the United Arab Emirates in the Gulf of Oman.

Like Thursday’s attack, that incident took place near the Strait of Hormuz, a vital shipping route that has been the focal point of regional tensions for decades. About 30% of the world’s sea-borne crude oil passes through the strategic choke point, making it a flashpoint for political and economic friction.

On June 6, the initial findings of an international investigation into attacks on the four tankers concluded that a “state actor” was the most likely culprit, but did not mention any state by name.

The UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Norway told the United Nations Security Council that there were “strong indications that the four attacks were part of a sophisticated and coordinated operation carried out with significant operational capacity.” The US, with the most sophisticated military on earth, and a National Security Advisor committed to regime change in Tehran has the capabilities to stage this sophisticated and coordinated operation more than any other state actor.

In a Tokyo press conference on Friday, the president of Kokuka Sangyo Marine, Yutaka Katada, said he believed “there is no possibility of mine attack as the attack is well above the naval line.”

According to Katada, a crew member said the second attack came from a flying shell.

Iran Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said “suspicious doesn’t begin to describe” this latest incident, noting that one of the tankers is Japanese-owned and the attack took place as Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was visiting Iran in an effort to calm tensions between Washington and Tehran.

Alireza Miryousefi, a spokesman for the Iranian mission, tweeted a statement saying Iran “categorically rejects the US unfounded claim” that Iran is behind the attacks and “condemns it in the strongest possible terms.”

So, it looks beyond suspicious that the US military is accusing Iran of the attacks, highly unlikely that they are actually caused by Iranians in any way, and highly likely that these attacks are caused by the US as a “state actor.”  Why do I say this?  What is my reason for thinking that the US government would actually be so aggressive as to start a war with Iran?

Simply, the US government has been controlled by think tanks which have had the goal of establishing US hegemony through aggressive military action for thirty years now. tweet

It is well-known at this point that the United States decision to invade Iraq was heavily influenced by the conservative think tank, “Project for a New American Century” which had a manifesto that they put out which can still be found online. Their central policy document is entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses (RAD),” from 1997 which you can find at this link: RAD.

The document basically outlines the strategy for total endless war and establishment of the “Pax Americana” which will eliminate any threats to US hegemony anywhere in the world. Now some of you might think this is paranoid, or a conspiracy theory but these are cold, solid facts of the major elements that are influencing the US foreign policy decisions that made the US invade Iraq in the interests of regime change in total defiance of the United Nations and the International Community. Of the signatories of the PANC document were Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Dan Quayle, and Jeb Bush.

Fast forward to 2019, 22 years later and we find Bolton as National Security Advisor.  It is well known, again, that he was one of the people who pushed most aggressively for the war with Iraq.  He is a member of another neoconservative think tank, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where Cheney and Wolfowitz are on the Board of Trustees.

One of their spokespeople, Richard Perle, who was involved with both PANC and the AEI, as well as Michael Ledeen (of the AEI), have adopted a stance that they call “total war” — the ability to wage multiple simultaneous wars around the globe to achieve American ends. Recently, Perle commented on America’s war on terrorism. “No stages,” he said, “This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq . . . this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don’t try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war…our children will sing great songs about us years from now.”

Bolton made a speech in Paris where he promised that he and an opposition group who he favors for leadership of Iran will be “celebrating in Tehran” by 2019. Those were his closing words in his speech in 2018.

Where Is All This Leading? 

Now, in 2019, the US claims that Iran has bombed a tanker, and Iran denies it. Iran does not want a war with the US. Unfortunately, large sectors of the people in control of the US government want a war with Iran. It is the conclusive assessment based on my “intelligence” that the attacks were staged by the one state actor who is anxious to start a war because it has been something they have been talking about and dreaming about for thirty years.

Many of the US citizenry do not want a war with Iran for a long list of reasons, and will resist it to the fullest extent possible. Even Trump, with his policy of America First, and not getting involved in foreign wars, seems to not want a war with Iran. But the unfortunate fact is that many in the US government, and primarily those who control the military, have been lobbying for war with Iran for decades.

So what does this mean?  Well, unfortunately the UN and the European community opposed the war in Iraq and the US government ignored them.  And currently, the European parties to the Iranian nuclear deal have crumbled under US sanctions and done nothing to follow through on the treaty they signed, in spite of ample evidence that the Iranians are following through on their end of the agreement. The European governments have been giving lip service to their decision to stand up to the US government, but whether they plan to follow through is somewhat of a mystery.

The fallout of the war on Iraq has been heavily felt by Europe with the massive influx of immigrants. Starting another massive war in the region will no doubt again flood Europe with refugees. Turkey in particular will be affected by a massive outbreak of war as they are reeling even more profoundly from the refugee crisis than the rest of Europe.

So if Europe won’t stand up to the US, what can we hope for? Perhaps Russia will object to the US staging an attack on a tanker or two, and then starting a war in their backyard. It would certainly be in their best interests to do so, and they have the military capacity to back up their resistance to the US plans.

So we can hope Europe has a spiritual awakening and follows through on their treaty, and that Russia exercises common sense and prevents a war on their doorstep. But what about Saudi Arabia?

We all know that the Saudis and the Iranians have been engaged in pitched battle in Yemen and Syria for many years now, and that basically the Iranians are winning. Why would the Saudis want further destabilization in the region and destruction after the disasters of the last few years. It makes sense that they would want peace in Iran to continue. The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammad bin Salman, or MBS, has connections to all the major players involved in the escalation of the US aggression towards Iran, including Israel and Russia, who both have friendly ties with him. MBS could transform the Muslim world at the lightning speed he is instituting change in Saudi with a simple attempt to create unity among Muslims.

Is it possible that the collective self-interest of all these powers will be sufficient to prevent the US starting a war with Iran?  tweet

The Iranians have reached across divisive lines of Shia and Sunni conflict with the recent movement for the World Forum for Proximity of Islamic Schools of Thought. There are many who dream of a world where Muslims stop attacking each other and focus instead on issues that affect our future as human beings, such as climate change and peace. Some believe MBS seems like he could be open to this type of goal. Possibly, MBS could do great things for Saudi Arabia and the Muslim community, as he seems to be aiming for with his Vision 2030.

So, Europe has a motive to avoid war, Russia has a motive to avoid war, Saudi Arabia has a motive to avoid war, and the US wants a war in all of their backyards either way. Is it possible that the collective self-interest of all these powers will be sufficient to prevent the US starting a war with Iran?  International consensus did nothing to prevent war in Iraq. Is there hope that it will prevent war in Iran?  Right now, there is no way to know. We can only pray that regime change happens in Washington before Washington enforces regime change in Iran. We can only pray that there is a unanimous international consensus that sees this false flag for what it is, and categorically refuses to cosign the US military plan for total war.

Follow Sarah Huxtable Mohr on Twitter or Instagram!

Image courtesy of @criturkish
Now Reading:
International Consensus Did Nothing to Prevent War in Iraq but Can It Save Iran?
11 minutes read
Search Stories