‘On Eve Of 4th Of July Parade U.S. Attempts To Lure Iran Into Shooting Down Another U.S. Plane’, July 3, 2019, moonofalabama.org
“Today a manned U.S. reconnaissance plane entered Iranian airspace in a clear attempt to provoke Iran into shooting it down. Such an incident would have created an occasion for Trump to give the American people a special 4th of July fireworks.”
“The case today is not in doubt. The U.S. military definitely tried to provoke Iran into shooting down another one of its planes. The US Airforce RC-135V Rivet Joint are signal intelligence planes that snoop on other countries.
The plane flew over the islands Abu Musa and Sirri in the Persian Gulf which are Iranian territory and Iranian airspace. It falsely signaled that it was an Iranian plane.
The aviation transponder of the U.S. spy plane was set to a code that is associated with Iran. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) defined (pdf) 24-bit addresses that identify the type of the plane and the country where a plane is registered . The 24 bit codes for Iranian registered airplanes begins with the country identifier 0111 0011, written in hexadecimal as 73.
As @GDarkconrad pointed out, this isn’t an accident, the USAF did this with Venezuelan codes off the coast of #Venezuela too. US reconnaissance planes are impersonating the codes of the countries they are conducting reconnaissance on, endangering future civilian flights.”
“This morning the U.S. spy plane willingly penetrated Iranian airspace. It squawked a fake code which showed ill intention. This happened on the 31st anniversary of Flight 655. The Iranian military would certainly still like to take revenge for that mass murder. It was a huge provocation likely intended to lure Iran into shooting it down.
Whoever came up with it, and those who signed off to allow this incident to happen, will now be disappointed. Iran clearly did not fall into their trap.
The world owns a big thank you to the Iranian air defense crews on Abu Musa for their disciplined behavior.”
Had Iran shot the plane down it would have been clearly within its rights. But imagine it had done so. A manned U.S. reconnaissance plane, not a drone, would have come down and the crew would be dead. U.S. media would scream for revenge.
It would have happened on the eve of Trump’s 4th of July speech which will be followed by the military parade and overflight he ordered. 5,000 people from military families are invited to the event.
An ideal TV situation to announce that the U.S. Commander in Chief ordered to ‘obliterate’ Abu Musa island, the castle that controls the Strait of Hormuz, with maybe a small nuke. The U.S. public would have loved those 4th of July fireworks. Newspapers would headline “Commander In Chief Demonstrates His Resolve!” Trump’s approval rating would soar to above 80%.
It would take days until the information that the flight was an intended provocation would enter the news. U.S. media would simply ignore it just as they ignored the evidence about Flight 655. The island would be unusable for Iran but the wider environmental damage from a small, kiloton range nuclear device would be minimal. No one in the U.S. would care about it.
One wonders who came up with such a nefarious plan. Was it Trump, the great showman, himself? Was that the reason why he ordered the military to join the 4th of July parade on such a short notice? Or was it John Bolton or ‘we lie, we cheat, we steal‘ Mike Pompeo? Some minion at the CIA or CentCom?”
‘Iran fury as Royal Marines seize tanker suspected of carrying oil to Syria’; Iran summons UK ambassador over incident off Gibraltar as tensions escalate over nuclear deal, July 4, 2019 [who wrote that stupid title?]
“Tehran responded by summoning Britain’s ambassador to its foreign ministry to explain what it described as an “illegal seizure”, which had been earlier described by the UK as enforcing the EU’s sanctions regime against Syria.
It is understood that the ambassador, Rob Macaire, reiterated the British position during the meeting, saying: “[The UK] welcomes this firm action by the Gibraltarian authorities” to enforce sanctions against the regime of Bashar al-Assad.
Marines from 42 Commando were involved in the overnight seizure, with some landing on the ship’s deck by rapidly descending down ropes suspended from a Wildcat helicopter, and the rest following up via speedboat.
MoD sources said British troops were at all times acting under the direction of the Gibraltar police. The marines provided the technical expertise to allow the tanker to be boarded at sea.
But the British position appeared to be contradicted by Spain, whose acting foreign minister, Josep Borrell, said Gibraltar had seized Grace 1 after a request from the US to Britain to pick up the tanker laden with crude oil.
White House national security adviser John Bolton welcomed the seizure of the ship. “Excellent news: UK has detained the supertanker Grace I laden with Iranian oil bound for Syria in violation of EU sanctions,” Bolton tweeted. “America & our allies will continue to prevent regimes in Tehran & Damascus from profiting off this illicit trade,” he said.
The UK Foreign Office faced a dilemma over the past few days knowing that if it seized the Iranian oil ship, as requested by the US, it risked deeply antagonising Tehran, which is desperate to increase its oil exports.”
“…the Foreign Office reasoned that it had a legal and moral duty to impound any ship that was heading to Syria in breach of EU sanctions. It was the Iranian’s surprise decision to enter Gibraltarian waters with its communications transponders on that left the UK with the option to impound the vessel.
In making its decision, the UK had to weigh the possible knock-on effect on the Iran nuclear deal, as well as reprisals against British diplomats in Tehran that work in an embassy that was trashed by Iranian protesters in this century.”
“Mapping data showed it sailed a longer route to the mouth of the Mediterranean, around the southern tip of Africa, instead of via the Suez Canal in Egypt.
Panama’s Maritime Authority said on Thursday night that the ship was delisted from Panama’s international boat registry as of 29 May after it received an alert indicating that the Grace 1 had participated in or was linked to terrorism financing.”
And there you have it: a report full of agitprop iron-clad innuendo, folks.
‘Iran’s ‘duty’ to seize British tanker if UK fails to release captured ship – senior official at IRGC’, RT.com, 5 July, 2019
“Gibraltar’s Chief Minister Fabian Picardo claimed that the ship was transporting crude oil to Syria “in violation” of the EU sanctions placed on Damascus. According to Madrid, which considers the waters off Gibraltar to be its own, the British captured the ship at the request of the US. Officials in Washington, meanwhile, welcomed the seizure of the vessel, saying that it was carrying Iranian oil.
Later in the day, Iran summoned the British ambassador and slammed the seizure of the vessel as “a destructive step” and “a form of piracy.” Foreign Ministry’s spokesperson, Abbas Mousavi argued that the sanctions against Syria are illegal under international law and Iran does not recognize them.
On Friday, Major General Mohsen Rezaee of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, who is also the secretary of the influential Expediency Discernment Council, tweeted that Iran should be ready for counter measures.
Should Britain refuse to release the ship, it is the authorities’ “duty to seize a British oil tanker,” he argued.”
On June 13, 2019 Tony Cartalucci had offered Brookings Institution’s 2009 In their 2009 paper, “Which Path to Persia?: Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran” (PDF), the corporate-financier funded Brookings Institution would first admit the complications of US-led military aggression against Iran (emphasis added):
‘...any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it.
The paper then lays out how the US could appear to the world as a peacemaker and depict Iran’s betrayal of a “very good deal” as the pretext for an otherwise reluctant US military response (emphasis added):
The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.
And from 2009 onward, this is precisely what the United States set out to achieve.
First with President Obama’s signing of the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal, up to and including President Trump’s attempts to backtrack from it based on fabricated claims Iran failed to honor the agreement.
The 2009 policy paper also discussed “goading” Iran into war, claiming (emphasis added):
With provocation, the international diplomatic and domestic political requirements of an invasion [of Iran] would be mitigated, and the more outrageous the Iranian provocation (and the less that the United States is seen to be goading Iran), the more these challenges would be diminished. In the absence of a sufficiently horrific provocation, meeting these requirements would be daunting.
Unmentioned directly, but also an obvious method for achieving Washington’s goal of provoking war with Iran would be the US simply staging an “Iranian provocation” itself.”
“How likely this is to succeed remains questionable – decades of US sanctions, covert and overt aggression, as well as proxy wars have left Iran resilient and with more influence across the region now than ever. Still, Washington’s capacity for sowing regional destruction or dividing and destroying Iran should not be underestimated.
The intentional creation of – then withdrawal from the Iran Deal, the US’ persistent military presence in the Middle East, and sanctions aimed at Iran all indicate that US policymakers remain dedicated isolating and undermining Iran. It will continue to do so until its geopolitical goals are met, or until a new international order creates conditions in the Middle East and throughout the global economy making US regime change against Iran impossible.”
Oh, the irony of this administration claiming to ‘support the IAEA’ now after three long years… As for who might be the true underlying authors of No Nukes/Total Hell on Iran, we can speculate Netenyahu, Bolton, Pompeo, and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, along with the Iranian CIA Desk (internal regime change) as authors. As for the larger picture, of course, Iran, Russia, and China are the new Axis of Evil, quaintly described earlier as ‘The Great Competitors’ (to American hegemony) because: Eurasian Heartland geopolitics. Syria, of course, is a proxy in the Pipelineistan Wars. But as this stinkin’ Empire is losing its power, it’s more dangerous and unpredictable, especially given the dyspeptic, deranged, and volatile nature of the President.
(cross-posted at caucus99percent.com)