Trump Claims He Canceled an Airstrike Against Iran at the Very Last Minute
The Saker • June 21, 2019
The
first thing to say here is that we have no means to know what really
happened. At the very least, there are two possible hypotheses which
could explain what took place:
1) a
US provocation: it is quite possible that somebody in the US chain of
command decided that Iran should be put under pressure and that having
US UAV fly right next to, or even just inside, the international border
of Iran would be a great way to show Iran that the US is ready to
attack. If that is the case, this was a semi-success (the Iranians had
to switch on their radars and attack the UAV which is very good for US
intelligence gathering) and a semi-failure (since the Iranians were
clearly unimpressed by the US show of resolve).
2) an Iranian provocation: yup, that is a theoretical possibility which cannot reject prima facie:
in this scenario it was indeed the Iranians who blew up the two tankers
last week and they also deliberately shot down the US UAV over
international waters. The goal? Simple: to show that the Iranians are
willing and ready to escalate and that they are confident that they will
prevail.
Now,
in the real world, there are many more options, including even mixes of
various options. What matters is now not this, as much as Trump’s
reaction:
Now,
whether this was a US provocation or an Iranian one – Trump’s reaction
was the only correct one. Why? Because the risks involved in any US
“more than symbolic strike” would be so great as to void any rationale
for such a strike in the first place. Think of it: we can be very
confident that the Iranian military installations along the Persian Gulf
and the southern border of Iran are highly redundant and that no matter
how successful any limited US missile strike would have been, the
actual military capabilities of Iran would not have been affected. The
only way for the US to effectively degrade Iranian capabilities would be
to have a sustained, multi-day, attack on the entire southern periphery
of Iran. In other words, a real war. Anything short
of that would simply be meaningless. The consequences of such an
attack, however, would be, in Putin’s words “catastrophic” for the
entire region.
If
this was an Iranian provocation, then it was one designed to impress
upon the Empire that Iran is also very much “locked, cocked and ready to
rock”. But if that is the case, there is zero change that any limited
strike would achieve anything. In fact, any symbolic US attack would
only signal to the Iranians that the US has cold feet and that all the
US sabre-rattling is totally useless.
I
have not said such a thing in many months, but in this case I can only
admit that Trump did the right thing. No limited attack also makes
sense even if we assume that the Empire has made the decision to attack
Iran and is just waiting for the perfect time. Why? Because the longer
the Iranian feel that an attack is possible, the more time, energy and
money they need to spend remaining on very high alert.
The
basic theory of attack and defense clearly states that the attacking
side can gain as a major advantage if it can leave the other side in the
dark about its plans and if the costs of being ready for a surprise
attack are lower than the costs of being on high alert (those interested
in the role and importance of surprise attack in the theory of
deterrence can read Richard Betts’ excellent book “Surprise Attack: lessons for defense planning“).
How
true is this story about Trump canceling a US attack at the last minute?
It is impossible to know, but it appears to me that it is certain that
the nutcase Neocons around Trump wanted the strike. But it is also
plausible (if by no means certain) that at least two groups could have
opposed such a strike:
1) The planners at CENTCOM and/or the Pentagon.
2) The planners for Trump’s reelection campaign.
The
first ones would lobby against such a strike simply on the sound
military grounds mentioned above. As for the second group, they
probably decided (correctly) that if Trump starts a war with Iran which
nobody has an “exit strategy” for – this could result in a huge blowback
for the entire region and kill Trump’s reelection chances.
In
this case, whether Trump listened to either group or simply followed his
gut instincts, it appears likely that Trump (maybe a “collective
Trump”) said “no, I don’t authorize this”. In this case, he does
deserve our sincere praise and gratitude (irrespective of this past
actions and inactions).
In
conclusion, I want to show the kind of fantastically stupid,
mindbogglingly ignorant and criminally irresponsible war propaganda the
so-called “conservative” US media outlets have been spewing. Check out
this one:
Hannity’s
flagwaving logorrhea is exactly the kind of total nonsense which will
sooner or later result in a major military disaster followed by a
collapse of the Empire itself (for a detailed outline of how this is
likely to happen, please read John Michael Greer superb book “Twilight’s Last Gleaming“).
The sheer number of counter-factual and plainly stupid things Hannity
manages to squeeze into just under 7 minutes is, by itself, a remarkable
feat.
Yes,
it is a sad day when one has to rejoice that the US President is
marginally less stupid and less ignorant than one of the big talking
heads on the US idiot box, but these are truly tragic and extremely
dangerous times. And in such times, we have to be grateful for
anything, no matter how minimal, which pushes back the inevitable war in
the Middle-East (or even the world).
This being said, where do we go from here?
Location of the attacks on tankers
My
personal guesstimate and almost baseless speculation is that the attack
on the two tankers was probably an Israeli false flag operation which
failed to achieve its intended results. Notice that the attack itself
did not take place inside Strait of Hormuz, but south of it, in
comparatively more open waters were an Israeli submarine or specialized
surface vessel had less changes to be spotted by the Iranians and a much
better chance of escape (for example, take a look at the 2nd map shown
below and see for yourself how the depth gradient rapidly drops in the
Gulf of Oman).
When
this attacked failed to achieve the desired effect, the Israelis and
their Neocon agents decided to engage into another provocation, this
time using a US drone. I find it likely that in terms of location, the
drone was flying inside Iranian airspace, but probably still over water
allowing the Empire do claims it’s usual (and CIA-created) cop-out of
“plausible deniability” in case of shootdown.
When
the Iranians shot down the US UAV, a lot of folks in the US probably
wanted to find out exactly where this UAV was flying at the moment of
intercept and since the Iranians probably have a lot of radar and EW
data to prove that the UAV was inside the Iranian airspace the only safe
course of action would have been to express all forms of protest but
not to take unilateral (and, therefore illegal) action.
It is also remarkable that the US has requested that the case of the two tankers and the shooting down of the drone be discussed at the UNSC.
Considering that both Russia and China will veto any resolution
condemning Iran, this also appears to be a move to find a pretext not to go to war.
Of
course, this might also be a strategic PSYOP destined to lull the
Iranians into a false sense of security. If that is the plan, it will
fail: the Iranians have lived with a AngloZionist bullseye painted on
their heads ever since 1979 and they are used to live under constant
threat of war.
In conclusion, I am currently very slightly optimistic (48-52%) that the US will not attack Iran in the short term.
In the long term, however, I consider that an AngloZionist attack is a quasi certainty.
PS: a pretty decent topographical map of the Strait of Hormuz
I high resolution topological map of the Strait of Hormuz
No comments:
Post a Comment