War With Iran Would Become 'Trump's War'

[freestar]

War With Iran Would Become 'Trump's War'

https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/p...ome-trumps-war

[EBounding]

But as Trump does not want war with Iran, Iran does not want war with us. Tehran has denied any role in the tanker attacks, helped put out the fire on one tanker, and accused its enemies of "false flag" attacks to instigate a war.

Does Pat Buchanan not know that Trump is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF of the US Armed Forces?

[Ender]

Does Pat Buchanan not know that Trump is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF of the US Armed Forces?

And, if Trump does not want war with Iran, why did he take the US out of the Iranian deal & sanction them, especially when they were in full compliance?

[Zippyjuan]

Trump is now trying to downplay the attacks on the tankers.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/18/trum...ery-minor.html

Trump calls alleged Iranian tanker attacks ‘very minor’

President Donald Trump downplayed the seriousness of suspected attacks on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman last week, essentially dismissing the idea that the recent events would trigger a war with Iran.

In an interview with Time magazine published Tuesday, Trump called the June 13 attacks, which his administration has blamed on Iran and which crippled two vessels and forced their crews to abandon ship, “very minor.”

“So far, it’s been very minor,” Trump told Time Magazine.

While he endorsed the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment that Iran was the likely culprit in last week’s events, he seemed to suggest that energy interests in the region — including the Strait of Hormuz, near the site of the attacks and the conduit for 30% of the world’s seaborne oil exports — were not worth starting a war over.

“Other places get such vast amounts of oil there,” Trump told Time, referring to major importers of Middle East crude like China and Japan. “We get very little. We have made tremendous progress in the last two and a half years in energy … So we’re not in the position that we used to be in in the Middle East where … some people would say we were there for the oil.”

The president’s comments are markedly less hawkish than those coming from the Pentagon and State Department, where national security leaders have insisted that all options are on the table, including military action, in order to defend U.S. interests.

Acting Defense Secretary Pat Shanahan has announced a fresh deployment of 1,000 additional troops to the region on top of the 1,500 announced last month as tensions climb between the two adversaries one year after Trump withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, commonly known as the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.

When asked by Time about what provocations would lead him to move toward war with Iran, the president replied, “I would certainly go over nuclear weapons.” Tehran announced Monday that it would breach the nuclear deal’s internationally agreed limits on its uranium enrichment and stockpiles in 10 days.

Trump has been reluctant to drive a war narrative, having run his 2016 campaign on promises of ending America’s drawn-out Middle East conflicts. Hawkishness toward Iran has been mainly attributed to his national security advisor John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who called for military action against Iran long before Trump’s ascent to the Oval Office.

Noting that Trump picked Pompeo and Bolton himself- knowing in advance about their hawkishness.

[juleswin]

And, if Trump does not want war with Iran, why did he take the US out of the Iranian deal & sanction them, especially when they were in full compliance?

It was a bad deal for Iran but they did not know it. So he took it out anyway, increased sanctions, appointed a few Iran hawks into his cabinet in order to force them into making a better deal. Iran would be thanking Trump after the radiation dust settles.

[Zippyjuan]

And, if Trump does not want war with Iran, why did he take the US out of the Iranian deal & sanction them, especially when they were in full compliance?

He has a strange approach to treaties. If he does not think one is good enough (and none seem to be), rather than keeping the existing treaty and try to improve on it, he walks away from the treaty- "no deal" is better than a "good enough for now" deal. But walking away from deals also makes people less reluctant to make a deal knowing he may quit it at any time. "My way or the highway" leaves him standing alone along an empty road.

[Swordsmyth]

He has a strange approach to treaties. If he does not think one is good enough (and none seem to be), rather than keeping the existing treaty and try to improve on it, he walks away from the treaty- "no deal" is better than a "good enough for now" deal. But walking away from deals also makes people less reluctant to make a deal knowing he may quit it at any time. "My way or the highway" leaves him standing alone along an empty road.

Which is much better than being tied down like Gulliver by bad treaties.

[Zippyjuan]

Which is much better than being tied down like Gulliver by bad treaties.

NAFTA was so bad he agreed to the same terms and renamed it and declared victory. (well, he did get Canada to concede to buy a few more gallons of milk and Mexico to pay autoworkers $15 an hour once the treaty is ratified by all counties involved).

[Swordsmyth]

NAFTA was so bad he agreed to the same terms and renamed it and declared victory. (well, he did get Canada to concede to buy a few more gallons of milk and Mexico to pay autoworkers $15 an hour once the treaty is ratified by all counties involved).

NAFTA is only one treaty and the replacement hasn't been implemented yet, it may never be and Trump may intend that it never is but he wants to be able to say it isn't his fault.

[Zippyjuan]

NAFTA is only one treaty and the replacement hasn't been implemented yet, it may never be and Trump may intend that it never is but he wants to be able to say it isn't his fault.

What other treaties has he been able to re-negotiate? The Great Negotiator? (Mexico did ratify it today- Canada and the US still need to)

but he wants to be able to say it isn't his fault.

Nothing is ever his fault. But if anything is good, it was all due to him. Even if he had nothing to do with it.

[Swordsmyth]

What other treaties has he been able to re-negotiate? The Great Negotiator? (Mexico did ratify it today- Canada and the US still need to)

Most of them don't need to be renegotiated, most of them just need to be pulled out of.

[PAF]

NAFTA is only one treaty and the replacement hasn't been implemented yet, it may never be and Trump may intend that it never is but he wants to be able to say it isn't his fault.

No, he will own it. Even if you/he blame the dems nothing will convince me otherwise. USMCA (NAFTA v2.0) is Trumps baby. Some signing ceremony, eh?

Iran is the last of the region that MUST comply. They are not part of our central banking system, they have lots and lots of oil, and do not wish to do business with our worthless FRN. Last I heard they will trade gold, I’ll have to dig that info up sometime but most here already know about that.

Hey SwordShill... once a NY lib, always a NY lib. A few bones here and there and some rhetoric for the next election, but if he does get re-elected there ya go.

[Anti Federalist]

Trump is now trying to downplay the attacks on the tankers.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/18/trum...ery-minor.html

Noting that Trump picked Pompeo and Bolton himself- knowing in advance about their hawkishness.

So this is good then, right? Walking back the War with Iran talk?

Or does it just not matter, no matter what he does: flip, flop or fly, it's gonna be wrong...that about it?

Good...downplay it is right...nobody knows for sure what happened and the ship's weren't flying a US flag.

$#@! 'em...let the vessel's flag states go to war to protect their shipping interests, if they are so inclined.

[Swordsmyth]

No, he will own it. Even if you/he blame the dems nothing will convince me otherwise. USMCA (NAFTA v2.0) is Trumps baby. Some signing ceremony, eh?

I said he wants it to not be implemented but he wants to blame others for that.

Iran is the last of the region that MUST comply. They are not part of our central banking system, they have lots and lots of oil, and do not wish to do business with our worthless FRN. Last I heard they will trade gold, I’ll have to dig that info up sometime but most here already know about that.

Iran is probably geopolitical controlled opposition:


A lot of players in the alternative media believe that Iran is a legitimate enemy of the City of London Jewish Power elite. We have all seen the memes which purport that Iran is one of the only countries without a Rothschild controlled central bank. This is nonsense because the Rothschilds are all over Iran with hundreds of Rothschild-controlled Swiss banks.


They also have a hand in the enormous Middle Eastern drug trade that is being run by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and the CIA/Mossad in Afghanistan. People don't realize that the Shah cut down on the Middle Eastern drug trade. It blossomed once the Shah was overthrown in the Iranian Revolution. The same drug trafficking, money laundering Rothschild Banking Syndicate that rules the West rules Iran.


To understand the modern day Islamic Republic of Iran, we need to go back in time. A lot has been written about the 1953 CIA Coup, Operation Ajax which overthrew Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh after he nationalized the Iranian oil industry. But little has been mentioned about the key role of the Ayatollahs in that coup. The Ayatollahs were on the CIA and MI6 payroll, and they were the ones who recruited the street thugs from the Iranian underworld who were instrumental in creating agitation against Mossadegh.


After the coup, these Ayatollahs became best buds with the Shah. The Shah sought to gain support from the Ayatollahs in the 1950s and gave them access to government radio stations so that they could preach to the masses. However, starting in the late 1950s, the Shah used his consolidation of power after the coup to pursue nationalist policies along the likes of Mossadegh.


His first bold move was signing an oil extraction agreement with Enrico Mattei, chairman of the Italian Petroleum Agency. Mattei is famed for establishing energy independence for Italy through its own oil fields, and for trying to break the City of London Seven Sisters Oil Cartels' control of the world oil market by signing generous oil extraction deals with third world countries.


At this time, many in the Shah's inner circle started to turn against him, and a military coup was thwarted by the Shah in 1958. General Mohammad-Vali Gharani had met with American diplomats in Athens shortly before the coup. One can guess who was behind it.


The Shah further made enemies by launching major reforms he called,"the White (Bloodless) Revolution" in 1963. The reforms included land redistribution, massive infrastructure expansion and industrial projects, the right of women to vote, religious freedom, and an expansion of health care and education programs. Wikipedia explains the Shah's attitude after these reforms the best,"In the 1960s and 70s the Shah sought to develop a more independent foreign policy and established working relationships with the Soviet Union and eastern European nations."
In subsequent decades, per capita income for Iranians skyrocketed, and oil revenue fueled an enormous increase in state funding for industrial development projects."


These are things that are certainly not in the City of London's interests. The Shah's reforms faced strong opposition from the Ayatollahs, led by Ayatollah Khomeini, the future Supreme Leader of Iran. These Ayatollahs favored keeping Iran under the centuries-old backward feudal system. They were angry that they were losing influence in the public realm. In response to the reforms, Khomeini launched protests against the Shah in June of 1963. These protests were crushed after a couple of days.


It has been rumored that those protests were financed by various intelligence services, whether it was the CIA, MI6, KGB, or a combination thereof. The KGB is a suspect based on Soviet counterintelligence defector Colonel Michael Goliniewski from Poland, who revealed that Khomeini was, "one of Moscow's five sources of intelligence at the heart of the Shiite hierarchy."


Furthermore, the Shah continued to move Iran on an independent course up until his overthrow. In 1973, the Shah finally achieved Mossadegh's goal of nationalizing the Iranian Oil Industry through the 1973 Oil Sale and Purchase Agreement. He also began to move closer to the Arab countries of the Middle East.


SHAH BECOMES AN ANTISEMITE


Some very little known facts about the Shah's change in foreign policy are found in the book, "Israel and the Shah" by Devon Bowers: "After the 1967 war, Iran became deeply wary of the Jewish state as while the Shah supported a strong Israel, he did not favor an Israel that was stronger than Iran. This worry was due to the fact that the Shah believed that the '67 war had changed Israel from a defensive state to an aggressive one and thus he was concerned about possible Israeli expansion." (AKA Greater Israel).


The Shah was merely defending his homeland. The Shah was doing a plethora of things which angered the Jewish Power elite during the 70s. After the Six Day war, Iran cancelled all joint-Israeli projects, refused to allow any Israeli government officials to his 1971 2500-year Persian Empire Anniversary Celebrations, provided the Arabs with oil and logistical support during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, and even sent a plane to transport a Saudi battalion to the Golan Heights during the war.


Furthermore, the Shah signed an agreement with Saddam Hussein to end Iranian/CIA support of Kurdish rebels in Iraq, and he froze all Israeli military cooperation and business with Iran in order to pressure Israel to return all conquered Egyptian land to Egypt, which eventually came to being during the Camp David Accords in 1978 (Bowers). Sunnis and Shias were finally coming together in peace as one large Muslim block against Israel. That is something that Israel was horrified about. That is why the Greater Israel plan was created.



It was at this point that the Jewish Power Elite decided to dump the Shah. Amnesty International issued a report on Savak's torture apparatus in 1976. This was heavily played up by the Washington Post and New York Times. The CIA also released their psychological profile on the Shah to the press, which accused the Shah of being,"a megalomaniac, who would pursue his own aims, in disregard of U.S. interests." To which the Shah exclaimed,"So you would like me to be your stooge?"



Something else has been missed by the alternative media for years. I came across this quote from the Wikipedia article about the history of Jews in Iran. It states,"Even though Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was sympathetic to the jews in the beginning, he displayed antisemitic tendencies towards the end of his reign.


Yousef Cohen, the last Jewish representative of Iranian Senate describes in his memoirs that Shah became suspicious of the Jewish community in his final years because most of the international criticism about lack of freedom in Iran and military style of government came from Jewish authors. Furthermore, the writer for the influential and highly publicized book, fall of 77 (probably crash of 79 by Paul Erdman mistakenly called 77 by Cohen), which predicted the fall of Shah a few years prior to his demise was Jewish. Shah, according to Cohen, displayed a remarkable intolerance and annoyance by the Jewish community in his last annual visit in March 1978 with the community leaders. Cohen describes that the Shah believed that there is an international Jewish Conspiracy against him to end his reign as king."

https://www.henrymakow.com/2018/06/i...ot-oppose.html



More at:
Israeli minister publicly confirms contacts with Saudi Arabia amid growing threat from Iran

[Swordsmyth]

So this is good then, right? Walking back the War with Iran talk?

Or does it just not matter, no matter what he does: flip, flop or fly, it's gonna be wrong...that about it?

Good...downplay it is right...nobody knows for sure what happened and the ship's weren't flying a US flag.

$#@! 'em...let the flag states go to war to protect their shipping interests, if they are so inclined.

^^^THIS^^^