Current posturing that could lead to conflict with Iran

First, I want to say I put this in Middle East Issues because this is a possibility IMO, and not a probability. I want it presented as something to keep an eye on rather than doom porn.

That said, I've seen a few indicators lately that have me keeping an eye on it a little more.

Bolton has always been honest about his position on Iran, and I think he is one of the key players in decisions around it.

In 2015, before he was involved (again) in government, he wrote a NYT OP-ED titled "To stop Iran's bomb, Bomb Iran". Pretty straight forward, but I'll include the conclusion of his opinion piece that eventually distills into the following.

The inescapable conclusion is that Iran will not negotiate away its nuclear program. Nor will sanctions block its building a broad and deep weapons infrastructure. The inconvenient truth is that only military action like Israel’s 1981 attack on Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in Iraq or its 2007 destruction of a Syrian reactor, designed and built by North Korea, can accomplish what is required. Time is terribly short, but a strike can still succeed.

Now, maybe he is right, and this thread isn't about whether that sentiment is right or wrong, it's about indicators.

Further more, I think the importance of Bolton on this is that he seems to have a special place in the administration.

As Mehdi Hasan with The Intercept points out (I'm not a fan of his work, but I think he has a valid point here), there were reports (grain of salt) Mattis didn't think highly of Bolton and eventually left, also that Kelly and Bolton got into a loud argument outside of the oval office and is also gone.

The biggest surprise to me and all of media though was when Trump said we would be pulling out of Syria (in his words rapidly, though it wasn't laid out at the time he said it), but then Bolton backtracks saying we won't leave until ISIS is defeated. While that's not the first time Trump and his advisors have had conflicting statements, I think it's important to note it usually doesn't bode well for those who talk against him.

Moving away from Bolton, I think the next important indicator is Pompeo, who outlined a very interesting position in Cairo, Egypt in the past week.

He blamed much of the turbulence in the Middle East on two entities, Iran, and Obama (Obama who ramped up military operations in the Middle East). Ultimately, his mission boiled down to (again aligning with Trump in conflict with Bolton)-

He warned that Iran’s Islamist regime poses a threat to the region, and urged other countries there to counter Tehran. He asserted that while America is a “liberating” force, Iran aspires to be an “occupying” one. He also pledged to both pull U.S. troops from Syria and also “use diplomacy and work with our partners to expel every last Iranian boot” from the Arab country.

Link.

Hmmm, sounds like a coalition.

Now we have the final and IMO, the most important player. Benjamin Netanyahu. We all knew that Israel had aggressive strikes on Iranian assets in Syria, and while we all knew that, they interestingly enough had a policy of not commenting on it.... until now.

In referring to Iran's entrenchment Syria, Netanyahu said: "I'm telling you, get out of there fast. We wont stop attacking." The prime minister frequently warns against an Iranian presence in Syria, saying Israel will not allow for the regime to take hold there.

link

Not only did he confirm the strikes a few nights ago, he went further to essentially own all the previous ones. Is it possible he's getting everyone's feet wet for escalation.

That's all I got right now, but feel free to add anything you feel we should note.

a reply to: CriticalStinker


Just came across, an ISIS suicide bomber just attacked one of our military units on patrol. Not confirmed but deaths being reported. Unusual timing don't you think?

Something is brewing. Most likely the MIC/Bankers not happy losing all of that easy money.

a reply to: seeker1963

Just came across, an ISIS suicide bomber just attacked one of our military units on patrol. Not confirmed but deaths being reported. Unusual timing don't you think?

Interesting indeed.

Why would ISIS attack (the US) at a time we are in talks of leaving Syria?

Who would benefit from justification for us to dial back that position?

a reply to: CriticalStinker

We are not going to war with Iran.

This is sabre rattling. I have no doubt that Bolton wants this. He has always stood with the Neocons since the Bush administration. Their express goal from the start has been war with Iran. Now that Trump is in and has been cast as anti-Semitic (whether he is or not), the neocon types are starting to go over to the Democrat (antiwar?) party. They don't like nationalism.

I think Trump really desires to lesson our involvement in foreign wars. Between Goldman Sachs, AIPAC, the neocons, and the major individual political donor billionaires, the Israel oriented segment is very influential. Trump senses this slipping away and wants to appeal to the Israel crowd. He already hangs out with Netanyahu but this has not helped him much. So he hired Bolton.

We could wipe Iran out but this would likely start WWIII just as invading Crimea could. It might make Israel happy but I don't see it happening.

All this has quite a lot to do with all the Russia Russia Russia stuff over the past two years also.

I think America needs a rest from these endless wars.

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: CriticalStinker


Just came across, an ISIS suicide bomber just attacked one of our military units on patrol. Not confirmed but deaths being reported. Unusual timing don't you think?

Something is brewing. Most likely the MIC/Bankers not happy losing all of that easy money.

ISIS is a Sunni organization, Iran is Shiite. They are both Islamic but have different goals. Israel is allied with Saudi Arabia and the Sunnis. So whatever is happening, it has little to do with Iran.

a reply to: toms54

It was near Syria or in Syria this happened. Hard to tell since everything there is all a SNAFU.


I always disliked Bolton. I really don't trust anyone who was with the CFR.

I came across a very confusing and conflicting article from the CFR that just doesn't jive with the Bolton I am familiar with though.

Check this out.

John Bolton, Sovereignty Warrior

President Trump’s appointment of firebrand John Bolton as National Security Advisor marks the definitive triumph of the “nationalists” over the “globalists” in his administration. At the heart of this dispute is how to define and advance American sovereignty. In Bolton, the president has selected the nation’s premier champion of a narrow, defensive, and ultimately self-defeating approach to the U.S. role in the world.

Mandella effect?

a reply to: toms54

We are not going to war with Iran.

Most likely not, but I try not to speak in absolutes, nor did I frame the OP to project to people that we were going to war with Iran.

I think America needs a rest from these endless wars.

As do I, but we won't achieve that with blind trust to our elected employees.

I can't count how many times they have said one thing and done another, so I will continue to use actions to define their platforms.

a reply to: seeker1963

From the same article you posted-

Bolton’s crimped worldview is no secret. As a senior official in both Bush administrations and from his perch at the American Enterprise Institute, Bolton has warned that U.S. Constitutional independence is endangered and U.S. freedom of action constrained by international law, multilateral organizations, and global treaties. This was the leitmotif of Bolton’s controversial stint as U.S. ambassador to the UN (2005-06), which he chronicled in a tendentious memoir tellingly titled Surrender is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad.

This guy doesn't like to play by the rules, and he has already shown he is willing to speak (and maybe act in the future) out of line with Trump.

I think he has also proved he isn't bound by the same rules others in Trump's administration are when it comes to making contradictory statements (from what Trump has said).

a reply to: seeker1963

Ha ha! Good find. Maybe US and Israel Sovereignty Warrior. Not the rest of the middle east.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: toms54

As do I, but we won't achieve that with blind trust to our elected employees.

I can't count how many times they have said one thing and done another, so I will continue to use actions to define their platforms.

elected employees? Not very good employees.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Isn't Iran one of the last 2 countries without a Rothschild controlled Central Bank?


"Why John Bolton Wants a Fringe Group to Rule Iran"

July 2017

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

I'm torn on if the Central Bank is a catalyst or rather a side effect after "restructuring".

Interesting video though, it always seems we are siding with past enemies against a common one, only to switch positions years down the road against the original "ally".

Bin Laden
Hussein
Gaddafi

And those are just recent ones, I'm sure I missed a few.

Hell, I've even read accusations that in the last few years western powers have aligned with factions of Al Qaeda in the efforts against Assad.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

We create the monsters that we later have to kill.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

After restructuring? If you think taking out countries is OK I suppose....

"15 mins of All Wars are Bankers Wars - Michael Rivero"

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

I wasn't saying that in the sense I agree with it, just recognizing it.

It's weird to see ISIS stand for something else than it used to

in C!A files didn't it used to be Secret Intel Service or something?

Anyways so Bolton has clarified US will never leave Mideast til the entire region is assimilated.

Posturing does seem incremental and to guarantee motive to start bombing Iran in order to stop their bombing us in the future.

Preemptive strikes, par for course.

Washington warmongers won’t be satisfied until presence in the Middle East isn’t dictated by Afghanistan or Iraq anymore, but now by Iran.

Seriously, ffs how many us servicemen have to die in probably the worlds most #tiest place on earth for people who don’t have the balls to even stand up for themselves?!

Screw the Middle East. Seriously... let them kill one another!

I heard a news line stating 'Iran moving ballistic missiles by boat".

Maybe more is going to be stated about the situation.

edit:

WASHINGTON (AP) – A U.S. official says intelligence information that prompted the Pentagon to send an aircraft carrier and Air Force bombers to the Middle East included indications that Iran had moved short-range ballistic missiles aboard boats in or near the Persian Gulf.