Posts Tagged ‘Iran war’

A “flash” message received in the Kremlin today from the Northern Fleet Command, whose Russian Navy flotilla is in the Mediterranean Sea after having just left their Syrian port of call, reports that the anti-submarine ship Admiral Chabanenko has detected the firing of a torpedo having the “unmistakable signature” of one fired from a kilo-class submarine near Isola del Giglio a popular vacation island about 18 miles off the Italian Tuscan coast.

Within 10 minutes from the detection of this torpedo being fired, this “flash” message continues, a distress call was received from a cruise ship nearing the port of Isola del Giglio Costa named Costa Concordia, and owned by owned by Genoa-based Costa Cruises, stating that it had been “attacked” and was in “immediate danger of capsizing.”

 

Reports from the London Telegraph about this attack state that the Costa Concordia’s passengers’ dinner was “interrupted by a loud boom around 8 pm local time” with an initial announcement claiming that the ship was suffering an electrical failure, ordering everyone onboard to don life-jackets, and appearing to confirm this “flash” message of it being an attack.

The Northern Fleet Command further states that after the initial distress call from Costa Concordia it was ordered by the US Naval Air Station Sigonella (located in Sicily and known as “The Hub of the Med”) to cease open broadcasts and, instead, use NATO encrypted communications only. [Note: Due to past attacks on cruise liners carrying international passengers, all Western ships of this type are required to carry NATO encrypted radios.]

Most disturbing about this “flash” message, however, is its stating that the only known submarine currently suspected to be in the Mediterranean Sea is one, or possibly two, possessing kilo-class torpedoes belong to the Islamic Republic of Iran Navy (IRIN).

Russian military analysts note that Iran has, indeed, previously stated its intentions to expand its naval forces reach into international waters with the Commander of Iran’s Navy Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari saying this past March they planned to expand their navy’s operational zone far beyond the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman.

In an 11 September 2008 report, the Washington Institute for the Near East Policy said that in the two decades since the Iraqi imposed war on Iran, the Islamic Republic has excelled in naval capabilities and is able to wage unique asymmetric warfare against larger naval forces. According to the report, Iran’s Navy has been “transformed into a highly motivated, well-equipped, and well-financed force and is effectively in control of the world’s oil lifeline, the Strait of Hormuz.”

Iranian naval leaders this past June, according to their state-run Fars News Agency, further stated that they now had a total of 11 submarines, which they said would be used to patrol the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman and that they would, also, send to distant waters such as the Red Sea and the Mediterranean.

To why Iran would attack innocent Western civilians Russian military analysts say is due to the “undeclared war” being waged against the Iranians by the West that has killed a number of their top nuclear scientists, military troops and bystanders, including women and children.

The latest attack in this “undeclared war” came this past week when another Iranian nuclear scientist was assassinated and that their Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said was committed by the “abominable” and “cowardly” intelligence services of the CIA and Mossad of the United States and Israel and that Iran is now reporting they have evidence to support.

Interesting to note is that within hours of these charges being leveled against the US by Iran’s Supreme Leader a number of top American intelligence officers leaked to the press that Israeli Mossad officers had posed as CIA agents and were recruiting for the Pakistani militant group Jundallah to carry out terror strikes in Iran, and as we can read, in part, as reported today by London’s Daily Mail News Service:

“When President Bush heard that this was going on, he ‘went absolutely ballistic,’ one agent said.

After Barack Obama took office, the report claimed, he ‘drastically scaled back joint U.S.-Israel intelligence programs targeting Iran,’ despite Israel’s frequent propositions to carry out covert assassination missions against Iran’s nuclear programme.

One intelligence official told the magazine: ‘Israel is supposed to be working with us, not against us. If they want to shed blood, it would help a lot if it was their blood and not ours.’

‘It’s amazing what the Israelis thought they could get away with,’ a U.S. intelligence officer told Foreign Policy.”

So fearful has the US become about an Israeli attack on Iran, the New York times reported yesterday that President Obama opened a “clandestine communication” with Iran’s Supreme Leader warning that if the Straight of Hormuz was closed he would have no choice but use military force to reopen it.

The Wall Street Journal is further reporting that President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other top US officials have delivered a string of private messages to Israeli leaders warning about the dire consequences of a strike, but at the same time are reported to be “prepping” their Mideast facilities for an Israeli attack on Iran.

With embattled Nigeria, one of the biggest suppliers of oil to the United States, preparing to cease pumping oil on Sunday as it nears outright civil-war, and when coupled with the staggering withdrawal by foreigners of over $85 billion in US debt in the last 6 weeks alone, Russian economists warn that an attack on Iran would literally send the US and EU economies into a “death spiral” as the cost of petrol would reach nearly $15 a gallon.

So dire has this situation become the head of the Kremlin’s Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev, warned yesterday that “There is a likelihood of military escalation of the conflict, towards which Israel is pushing the Americans.”

Also, speaking today at a press conference in Brussels, outgoing Russian Ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin warned against a NATO attack on Iran, saying that Russia would view any military attacks as a “direct threat to our security.”

Philip Giraldi, the former counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) warned in his latest column, “What War With Iran Might Look Like,” that an attack by Iran, like the one suspected against the Costa Concordia would, indeed, be the spark that sets off World War III.

Unfortunately for the American people, who are not allowed to know these things by their propaganda media organs, the events described herein that they believe will have no affect on them couldn’t be more mistaken as the fires of this “last global war” will most surely affect us all.

One can only hope these people awaken from their long slumber before all is truly lost.

Source Article Link: http://mysteryoftheinquity.wordpress.com/2012/01/14/italian-cruise-ship-reported-torpedoed-by-iranian-submarine/

JP

Jerusalem Post article implies US will stage provocation to justify military assault

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Friday, January 13, 2012

Former Israeli intelligence officer Avi Perry writes that a “surprise” Pearl Harbor-style Iranian attack on an American warship in the Persian Gulf will provide the pretext for the US to launch all-out warfare against Iran.

Given the fact that former Vice President Dick Cheney’s office openly considered staging a false flag attack on a US vessel in the Persian Gulf to blame it on Iran as a pretext for war, Perry’s summation of how “2012 will see to a new war,” cannot be taken lightly.

Under the headline ‘The looming war with Iran‘, Perry writes;

Iran, just like Nazi Germany in the 1940s, will take the initiative and “help” the US president and the American public make up their mind by making the first move, by attacking a US aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf.

The Iranian attack on an American military vessel will serve as a justification and a pretext for a retaliatory move by the US military against the Iranian regime. The target would not be Iran’s nuclear facilities. The US would retaliate by attacking Iran’s navy, their military installations, missile silos, airfields. The US would target Iran’s ability to retaliate, to close down the Strait of Hormuz. The US would then follow by targeting the regime itself.

Elimination of Iran’s nuclear facilities? Yes. This part would turn out to be the final act, the grand finale. It might have been the major target, had the US initiated the attack. However, under this “Pearl Harbor” scenario, in which Iran had launched a “surprise” attack on the US navy, the US would have the perfect rationalization to finish them off, to put an end to this ugly game.

Perry’s use of quotation marks around the word “surprise” comes across as a literary device to imply that the so-called “surprise” attack will not be a surprise at all.

Of course, the Pearl Harbor attack, which provided the pretext for America’s formal entry into World War Two, was not a “surprise” by any means, it was known well ahead of time.

Released Freedom of Information Act files prove that weeks before the December 7 attack by the Japanese, the United States Navy had intercepted eighty-three messages from Admiral Yamamoto which gave them details of precisely when and where the attack would take place.

It’s also completely nonsensical that Iran would actively seek to provide the world’s pre-eminent nuclear superpower with an easy excuse to justify an attack by deliberately targeting US warships in the Persian Gulf. Perry’s article seems to be a tongue-in-cheek admission that the US or Israel will manufacture such an attack.

This presumption need not delve into the murky realm of conspiracy theories – history tells us that fake naval attacks have been staged on numerous occasions to hoodwink the American people into supporting wars of aggression.

Remember the Maine? The battleship USS Maine blew up while it was stationed in Havana harbor in February 1898. Although a Navy investigation could not find the cause of the explosion, the American media, led by pioneer of “yellow journalism” William Randolph Hearst, immediately blamed Spanish saboteurs, whipping the public into a war fever.

When Hearst sent his reporter Frederick Remington to investigate, little of note could be established about the disaster. When Remington asked to be recalled, Hearst told him, “Please remain. You furnish the pictures, I’ll furnish the war.”

“Hundreds of editorials demanded that the Maine and American honor be avenged. Many Americans agreed. Soon a rallying cry could be heard everywhere — in the papers, on the streets, and in the halls of Congress: “Remember the Maine! To hell with Spain.”

As a result of an incident that many consider to either be an accident or a deliberate false flag attack by the US on its own ship, the US was at war with Spain within months.

Over 60 years later, another staged naval event, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, was used as a pretext for the United States to launch the Vietnam war.

President Johnson told the American public that North Vietnamese torpedo boats launched an “unprovoked attack” against a U.S. destroyer on “routine patrol” in the Tonkin Gulf. Leaked cables and recordings of White House telephone conversations later proved that the incident was completely manufactured, and that “our destroyers were just shooting at phantom targets — there were no PT boats there,” according to Navy squadron commander James Stockdale, who was flying over the scene that night.

There was almost a 21st century version mirror of the Gulf of Tonkin incident in January 2008, when the US government announced that it had been “moments” away from opening fire on a group of Iranian patrol boats in the Strait of Hormuz after the boats allegedly broadcast a warning that they were about to attack a US vessel.

The Iranian warning later turned out to be of dubious origin, but the incident led to a discussion in Vice-President Dick Cheney’s office about how to start a war with Iran by launching a false flag attack at sea, according to Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh.

The January 2008 Strait of Hormuz incident taught Cheney and other administration insiders that, “If you get the right incident, the American public will support it”. Hersh said: “There were a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don’t we build, we in ‘our shipyard’, – build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up. Might cost some lives”.

Given the dangerous nature of overlapping Iranian and US/Israeli naval drills set to take place in the same region at some point within the next two weeks, the potential for another staged incident at sea that will be exploited as a pretext for war remains a potent threat.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.

Source Article Link: http://www.infowars.com/ex-israeli-intelligence-officer-pearl-harbor-style-attack-will-be-pretext-for-war-on-iran/

JP

by Rory Fitzgerald

Posted: 11/14/11 11:00 AM ET

It’s starting to look like all those crazy 2012 prophecies might not be so wide of the mark after all. Even as the world is transfixed by the slow-motion implosion of the eurozone, reports are emerging that Israel might strike Iran’s nuclear facilities early in the New Year. The unpredictable interaction two such epochal events could cause a global catastrophe like something out of a bad science fiction novel.

Nowadays, it seems that almost every day the unthinkable not only becomes thinkable, but it actually happens. So it goes with the eurozone: The bloc seemed like a rock of stability until a couple of years ago, now it seems to have entered an irreversible tailspin. Economist Nouriel Roubini has recently joined many others in warning that “Italy may, like other periphery countries, need to exit the euro and go back to a national currency, thus triggering an effective break-up of the eurozone.” Such an event could cause unprecedented economic devastation in Europe and around the world.

The only long-term solution to the euro crisis is total fiscal integration. Yet this is completely unacceptable to almost every eurozone polity. The necessary treaty changes would require referenda in at least four nations. These referendums would not pass. Nor would such measures be passed by many EU parliaments, especially as eurosceptic parties are rising rapidly across the continent. Solving the eurozone crisis by way of federalist integration is politically impossible. Therefore, eventual collapse or a worsening of the crisis is almost inevitable. The only real question is how bad it will get, and optimists are hard to find.

The most recent data shows that the eurozone, and much of the world, may be slipping rapidly into recession. Property and commodity bubbles are bursting even in China. Not only that, but there is no more fiscal stimulus to be had. The global economy’s life raft is gone.

The combination of the onset of a second global Great Depression, a devastating banking crisis in Europe, fragmentation of the eurozone and rolling sovereign debt crises across the US and Europe is bad enough. This scenario is, in itself, a total catastrophe. Yet some serious economists say such outcomes are very possible within the next 12 months. However, few have thrown into the mix the ramifications of an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities — also likely within the next 12 months.

The eurozone crisis and Iran’s nuclear weapons program are widely seen as discrete and unrelated events. However, they could interact in potentially horrific ways. Jeffery Goldberg of The Atlantic magazine says there is a “better than 50 percent chance that Israel will launch a strike by next July.” Israel simply cannot tolerate a nuclear armed Iran. Sanctions have failed miserably and the recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report suggests that Iran could begin building a nuclear weapon within months.

The Daily Mail has recently cited UK Foreign Office sources as saying that the British government expects Israel to attack Iran “sooner rather than later … We’re expecting something as early as Christmas, or very early in the New Year.” Israeli President Shimon Peres has said: “The possibility of a military attack against Iran is now closer to being applied than the application of a diplomatic option.”

Tehran has threatened to respond with “an iron fist,” and has warned about “aggressors and invaders being smashed from within.” A massive onslaught on Israel could be expected via Syria and Hamas. Simultaneously, terrorist attacks could happen in cities across the Western world. The political consequences of an attack across the Muslim world are incalculable, but one immediate effect of an Israeli attack would be on oil supply.

The first thing Iran will do if attacked is blockade the critical oil-shipping lanes through the Strait of Hormuz. This would instantly send the price of oil skyrocketing to between $175 and $500 a barrel, depending on whose estimates you believe. America’s National Defense magazine says that “Under a worst-case scenario 30 day closure of the Strait of Hormuz … the U.S. would lose nearly $75 billion in GDP.” The effects on Europe would be similarly disastrous. Iran’s Navy is no match for the US Fifth fleet, but all Iran need do is slip a few mines into the water and the straits could be closed for months. Additionally, Iran might attack Saudi Arabia’s oil facilities in Dhahran, and the price of oil would instantly reach the stratosphere. Even in a best-case scenario, more stringent sanctions against Iran are now almost inevitable and these will seriously exacerbate the turmoil in financial markets, already reeling from the euro crisis.

In our interconnected world, events in Brussels and Tehran can interact like never before. US Defense Secretary Panetta has warned of the “unintended consequences” of an attack on Iran. Yet, it is impossible to imagine Israel meekly allowing Iran develop the bomb. It is also impossible to imagine Iran voluntarily giving up its nuclear program. Like an eventual euro breakup, many believe that a strike on Iran is not a matter of if, but when. If these two events happened simultaneously, or nearly so, the consequences would be utterly incalculable.

 
JP
 

Sarkozy calls Netanyahu “liar,” Obama administration cools on sanctions

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Developments over the last 24 hours suggest that Israel could be forced to go it alone in launching a military assault on Iran’s nuclear facilities, with the United States and NATO backing away from becoming involved in a conflict that would spark economic and geopolitical turmoil.

Israel Could Be Forced To Go It Alone On Iran Attack netanjahu

During a private conversation with Barack Obama at last week’s G20 meeting, French President Nicolas Sarkozy was overhead by journalists to say, “I cannot bear Netanyahu, he’s a liar.” Obama responded by remarking, “You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!”

The comments were caught after a microphone was accidentally left on following the conclusion of the conference.

“A Reuters reporter was among the journalists present and can confirm the veracity of the comments, which were relayed by a French internet outlet on Tuesday,” reports Haaretz.

The exchange highlights a deepening gulf between western powers and Israel over plans to attack Iran, with French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe making it clear today that France does not support a military campaign.

“If the IAEA report, due out this week, indicates Iran is building atomic weapons capabilities, then France would firmly back further UN sanctions, he said, but would do all it can to stop military action,” reports the Jerusalem Post.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration has reportedly backed away from plans to impose new economic sanctions on Iran, fearing, “Severe penalties against Iran’s central bank and its fuel exports would exacerbate the turmoil on international financial markets,” reports DebkaFile.

With Russia and China also expressing their opposition to an attack, it seems likelier that Israel will exploit a contrived pretext to prove that Iran represents an imminent threat to its security, an event that will carry far more shock value than the text of an IAEA report.

Should Israel wish to stage a Gulf of Tonkin-style provocation, it will call on Mossad agents to pose as terrorists and carry out attacks that will be blamed on Iran, similar to how Palestinian militants were offered cash and weapons by Israel to pose as an Al-Qaeda cell and carry out bombings in 2002.

Even if Israel is forced to launch an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities without the support of the United States and other NATO powers, don’t expect them to not get involved at some point.

The inevitable reprisal attacks that Iran will launch through its proxies like Hezbollah will be seized upon by the establishment media (‘how dare they defend themselves’) and cited as a pretext for US involvement to ‘maintain security in the region’ – and America will find itself embroiled in yet another conflict.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show.

SOURCE ARTICLE LINK: http://www.prisonplanet.com/israel-could-be-forced-to-go-it-alone-on-iran-attack.html