Western secret services are perfecting clandestine tools which are designed to weaken countries like viruses weaken bodies, the Russian foreign intelligence chief has said. This kind of warfare is currently used in Venezuela.
The criticism came from Sergey Naryshkin, who heads Russia’s foreign intelligence agency SVR. He said spies are constantly improving the tool used to dispose of governments that the West does not like.
“We are talking about creating a universal algorithm for conducting clandestine influence operations in a continuous manner and on a global scale,” he said. According to the official, this clandestine work “never stops and targets not only enemies, but also friends and neutral powers in the times of peace, crisis and war.”
It can be compared to the action of a virus; it can spend decades destroying a human organism without symptoms, and once diagnosed, often it’s too late to treat it.
The methods used to influence and destabilize other nations include creating network-oriented structures that can operate on a premise of public activism, art, science, religion or extremism, the Russian official said. After collecting data on the fault lines in a targeted society, those structures are used to attack those weak points in a synchronized assault, overwhelming the nation’s capability to respond to crises.
Simultaneously the perpetrators push a narrative through local and global media and social networks that claims that the only way to resolve problems is to replace the government of the victim nation with another one, possibly with a direct foreign support.
“We can observe this scenario being implemented in Venezuela,” Naryshkin said.
The US is currently trying to replace Venezuela’s elected President Nicolas Maduro with another person, Juan Guaido, whom Washington recognized as the legitimate head of the South American nation.
Among others, the US backs his bid with economic sanctions against Venezuela and a massive diplomatic and media campaign in support of the pretender. Guaido’s attempts to actually seize power in Caracas have been futile, so far.
The Russian intelligence chief was speaking at an international security forum in Ufa, Russia, which is hosted by the Russian National Security Council. The event is meant for officials directly involved in policy making on security issues. Almost 120 nations are participating in this year’s gathering.
(TMU Op-Ed) — While Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was quick to rush to the conclusion that Iran was the key actor behind alleged attacks on oil tankers in one of the world’s most strategically important oil routes—the Strait of Hormuz—the world has grown increasingly weary of the tall tales spun from Washington in its pursuit of conflict in the Middle East.Indeed, many figures across the globe have greeted the accusations with extreme skepticism, largely agreeing with Tehran’s argument that the U.S. is solely interested in promoting an “Iranophobic” campaign on a potential path to war.Even the Japanese owner of one of the attacked tankers, the Kokuka Sangyo Company, has insisted that no possibility exists that a torpedo was fired at the ship, which contained 25,000 tons of methanol headed to Japan.
“The crew told us something came flying at the ship, and they found a hole. Then some crew witnessed the second shot.”
The skepticism has extended to Europe. On Monday, a meeting of 28 European Union foreign ministers vocally called for an independent United Nations investigation of the attack on two Gulf tankers, with the U.K. largely isolated in its lonesome support of the Trump administration’s certainty that the attacks were carried out by Iran.
Jean Asselborn, Luxembourg’s foreign minister, said:
“I believe that the main task of foreign ministers is to avoid war. We have to do that today.”
Heiko Maas, the German foreign minister, also stressed that despite the certainty of U.S. and U.K. intelligence agencies, Germany would continue “comparing this with our information.” Maas added that “you have to proceed very, very carefully on this.”
Indeed, no hard proof that Iran was behind the attacks has yet emerged, although Washington has released a video claiming to show an Iranian patrol boat removing an unexploded mine from the side of a tanker.
Yet the video, if it is to be accepted as clear proof of an Iranian hand in the attacks, raises questions as to why Tehran would pull such a daring maneuver prior to trying to remove the evidence of their role in the attacks, all in broad daylight.
Writing for Eurasia Review, Iranian-American author Kaveh L. Afrasiabi commented:
“In a word, it simply makes no sense, except from the prism of the U.S. seeking to incriminate Iran at any cost, as part of a step-by-step strategy of increasing escalations with Iran.
Clearly, the U.S. wants to have it both ways, portray the ‘rogue’ Iranians as capable of considerable mischief with a high degree of professional sophistication and, simultaneously, as highly amateurish. This schizoid image of Iran serves U.S. interest in smearing Iran and thus laying the groundwork for another Iraq-like war scenario based on false pretexts.”
Along with the U.K., Iran’s major regional foes—the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia—have been the most vocal players attempting to escalate the crisis in hopes to further isolate the Islamic Republic.
On Sunday, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman further called for the world to take a “decisive stand” over the attacks while claiming the kingdom doesn’t seek war in the region. Yet MbS, as he is known, is seen across the globe as a highly dubious figure, especially in the aftermath of the grisly abduction and murder of Jamal Khashoggi and the bloody war on Yemen.
The broad skepticism confronting Washington’s accusations, which come amid the Trump administration’s “maximumpressure” policy against Tehran, hint at a major impasse for the U.S. regarding its compromised credibility on the world stage.
On Friday, author and analyst Vijay Prashad toldDemocracy Now:
“It’s important for Americans to understand that the U.S. government is deeply isolated on this issue of Iran and on the way that the U.S. government portrays Iran. In the rest of the world, Iran is seen as a stabilizing force in that region. For some strange reason, the U.S. government believes that Iran is an interloper.
In other words, there are almost 80 million Iranians who live in West Asia, and they somehow are seen to be out of place, whereas the United States … portrays itself as a regional actor. This is very bizarre for people around the world. And I think Americans need to understand that.”
But it’s worth recalling that the U.S. also faced widespread opposition and skepticism in 2003 over its pre-war accusations that then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein enjoyed close ties to al-Qaeda and possessed weapons of mass destruction. In the end, none of that amounted to much in terms of dissuading the White House and the Pentagon from launching a military adventure that ultimately proved to be a debacle for all parties involved.
And if some reports are to be believed, the U.S. may be considering waging a limited armed conflict against Iran in the coming days.
According to Israeli newspaper Maariv, anonymous diplomatic sources at the U.N. building in New York claim that the U.S. is planning on launching “massive” tactical strikes on an Iranian facility linked to its nuclear program. The sources claim that while President Trump himself is far from enthusiastic about such an option, he’s largely grown impatient about the matter and willing to give hardline Secretary Pompeo a free hand to do as he wants.
The report, which is completely unverifiable, comes as Iran has signaled that it will break from the multilateral nuclear agreement signed in 2015—which Trump already comprehensively shredded last year—and will enrich uranium at much higher levels than previously agreed.
Whether Washington is seriously considering an attack on Iran or whether this is more bluffing and psychological warfare remains to be seen.
However, we can say with great certainty that the United States, and the world, will incur huge costs in the event of any ill-considered wager on launching a war with Iran, be it “tactical” or “strategic.”
While the U.S. can no longer win wars—as it has shown in Iraq and Afghanistan—it still maintains the unrivaled capability to unleash destruction on a massive scale.
The political party of Juan Guaido — Voluntad Popular (Popular Will) — was never all that popular to begin with. The sixth largest political party in Venezuela, Popular Will is heavily financed by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Now, a recently exposed embezzlement scandal in Colombia risks to further alienate the party from the Venezuelan people.
What was supposed to be Guaido’s watershed moment has instead turned out to be a public-relations failure far worse than his quickly quelled attempted military coup, which MintPress Newsreported caused even the New York Times to describe Guaido as “deflated.”
What happened in Colombia appears to be so damning that not only is the Colombian intelligence service leaking documents exposing wrongdoing by Popular Will representatives appointed by Guaido, but the Organization of American States (OAS) — which is typically just as pro-opposition as the Colombian government — has called for an investigation.
In a tweet issued June 14 at 10:47 p.m. Venezuela time, Guaido called on his ambassador to Colombia — whom he had shut out of the aid event — to formally request an investigation by Colombian authorities, whose already-existing investigation is the reason the story came out in the first place. That was more than four hours after Secretary General of the OAS Luis Almagro called for an investigation that would clarify the “serious charges,” identify those responsible and effectuate accountability.
But Guaido had already been well aware of the charges, having dismissed his appointees who appear to be ringleaders of the embezzlement scheme. According to the report, he was contacted by the journalist who exposed the scandal 30 days before the story was published.
What happened in Cúcuta isn’t staying in Cúcuta
There’s barely a peep about the scandal in the Western press. A Google News search for “Juan Guaido scandal” and “Popular Will scandal” turned up nothing of relevance at the time of this article’s writing. But on Latin America social media, everyone is buzzing about it. American journalist Dan Cohen appears to be the first to highlight the scandal to an English-speaking audience.
It started with a request from Juan Guaido to billionaire investor and regime-change enthusiast Richard Branson.
Associates of Venezuelan coup frontman Juan Guaidó embezzled funds raised in Cúcuta, Colombia for humanitarian aid and lavishly spent it on hotels, nightclubs and expensive clothes. This is a monumental scandal! Great work by @OrlvndoA.
PanAm Post Español
Enviados de @jguaido se apropian de fondos para ayuda humanitaria en #Colombiahttps://buff.ly/2ZqFjAh Por @OrlvndoA#14Jun
The stated purpose of the concert was to help raise funds for humanitarian aid and spotlight the economic crisis. At least that’s how it was billed to Americans. To Venezuela’s upper class, it was touted as the “trendiest concert of the decade.”
It was to be a congregation of the elite with the ostensible purpose of raising funds for the poor. One director of Popular Will toldVice News in 2014 that “the bulk of the opposition protesters are from the middle and upper classes and are led by Venezuela’s elite.” The class character of the opposition has not changed since.
Meanwhile, USAID was to coordinate the delivery of aid alongside Guaido; and Elliot Abrams, who in Guatemala used “humanitarian aid” as cover for the delivery of weapons into the country, is running the White House’s policies toward Venezuela. And so the aid was widely criticized, even by the International Red Cross, as politicized. By others, it was called a Trojan Horse.
The concert was held in Colombia across a bridge linking the country to Venezuela. International media had claimed Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro had the bridge shut down to prevent the delivery of aid, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo demanded that the “Maduro regime must LET THE AID REACH THE STARVING PEOPLE.” But the bridge, in fact, has never been opened for use.
Nonetheless, Richard Branson sought to raise $100 million and promised that Guiado “will be coming to the other side of the bridge with maybe a million of his supporters.” In the end, it was a little more than 200,000 who came.
Venezuelan singer Carlos Baute, left, gets ready to embrace Venezuela Aid Live concert organizer Sir Richard Branson, prior to the start of the concert on the Colombian side of the Tienditas International Bridge on the outskirts of Cucuta, Colombia, on the border with Venezuela, Feb. 22, 2019. Fernando Vergara | AP
Meanwhile, Guaido told the President of Colombia, Ivan Duque, that more than 1,450 soldiers had defected from the military to join them. But that figure was also inflated. A new report by PanAmPress, a Miami-based libertarian newspaper, reveals that it was just 700. “You can count on your fingers the number of decent soldiers who are there,” one local told the outlet.
Despite the low turnout, organizers lived it up in Colombia. Representatives from Popular Will, which rejects the socialist leadership of Venezuela, found themselves living like socialites across the border.
There were earlier signs of excess and debauchery. One Popular Will representative was hospitalized and his assistant found dead after overdosing while taking drugs with prostitutes, although Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) claims they were poisoned.
celine and julie go bowling @MissPavIichenko
FyreFest walked so Richard Branson’s aid concert could run.
Replying to @RealAlexRubi
Turns out I extremely called this one. The @richardbranson aide concert in Colombia was rife with debauchery & excess:
– $150,000+ per night on hotels & nightclubs – Prostitutes – Luxurious dinners, fancy drinks – High end clothe shopping spreeshttps://es.panampost.com/orlando-avendano/2019/06/14/enviados-de-guaido-se-apropian-de-fondos-para-ayuda-humanitaria-en-colombia/amp/?__twitter_impression=true …
The inflated soldier count meant more funds for the organizers, who were charged with putting them up in hotel rooms. Guaido’s “army was small but at this point it had left a very bad impression in Cucuta. Prostitutes, alcohol, and violence. They demanded and demanded,” the report said.
They also left a bad taste in the mouth of the authorities. The Colombian government was supposed to pay for some of the hotels, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees was to cover the costs of others, while Guaido’s people were only going to pony up the cash for two of the seven hotels.
But Popular Will never paid, leaving one hotel with a debt of $20,000. When the situation became completely untenable, the hotel kicked 65 soldiers and their families to the curb. One soldier anonymously told the outlet that the party was not taking care of their financial needs as promised.
Guaido’s ambassador to Colombia took money out of his own pocket to try to resolve the dispute, but the check bounced.
The responsibility of taking care of the needs of the defectors went to Popular Will militants Rossana Barrera and Kevin Rojas, as decreed by Juan Guaido in a signed statement. They were also charged with overseeing the humanitarian aid.
Barrera is the sister-in-law of Popular Will member of Congress Sergio Vargara, Guaido’s right-hand man. She and Rojas were managing all the funds.
But the pair started to live well outside their means, a Colombian intelligence source told the outlet. “They gave me all the evidence,” writes PanAmPress reporter Orlando Avendano. “Receipts that show excesses, some strangely from different check books, signed the same day but with identical writing styles.”
Rojas and Berrera were spending nearly a thousand dollars at a time in the hotels and nightclubs. Similar amounts were spent at times on luxurious dinners and fancy drinks. They went on clothes shopping sprees at high-end retail outlets in the capital. They reportedly overcharged the fund on vehicle rentals and the hotels, making off with the extra cash. Berrera even told Popular Will that she was paying for all seven hotels, not just the two. And they provided Guaido with the fake figure of more than 1,450 military defectors that needed accommodation.
In order to keep the funds flowing, Rojas and Berrera pitched a benefit dinner for the soldiers to Guiado’s embassy in Colombia. But when the embassy refused to participate, Berrera created a fake email address posing as a representative of the embassy, sending invitations to Israeli and U.S. diplomats. They canceled the event after Guaido’s embassy grew wise to the scheme and alerted those invited.
“The whole government of Colombia knew about it: the intelligence community, the presidency, and the foreign ministry,” writes PanAmPress, calling it an “open secret” by the time Guaido dismissed the pair. But that was after Guaido had been defending them staunchly, trying to avoid a firing by transferring responsibilities to the embassy.
Berrera was called to the embassy for a financial audit, represented by Luis Florido, a founding member of Popular Will. She turned in just a fraction of the records uncovered by Colombian intelligence, accounting for only $100,000 in expenditures. “The [real] amount is large,” the outlet reports, citing an intelligence agent who says far more was blown.
Meanwhile, “at least 60 percent of the food donated” by foreign governments “was damaged.”
“The food is rotten, they tell me,” the PanAmPress reporter said, adding that he was shown photographs. “They don’t know how to deal with it without causing a scandal. I suppose they will burn it.”
It isn’t yet known exactly how much was embezzled by Popular Will, but it is likely the truth will come out in due time, and more investigations are likely underway. On Monday, Venezuelan defectors said they will hold a press conference in Cucuta, showcasing more corruption by Popular Will. For now, however, the fallout remains to be seen.
One thing is certain: the scandal threatens to end Juan Guaido’s 15 minutes of fame. The de facto opposition leader had little name recognition inside Venezuela and never won a political position with more than 100,000 votes behind him. But the overnight sensation never had a lengthy life expectancy anyway.
Though he received so few votes (Venezuela’s population is nearly 32 million), Guaido became the president of the National Assembly because the body is controlled by a coalition of opposition groups, despite President Nicolas Maduro’s PSUV Party being the largest in the country. That was in January, and the length of the term lasts only one year. In 2015, the opposition coalition decided that after each term, the seat would be rotated to a representative of a different opposition party. While there is no law barring Guaido from being appointed president of the National Assembly again, tradition runs counter to it and another party may want to seize on a chance to get into the limelight.
Supporters of the coup — and Guaido’s self-declaration as interim president — claim that Maduro is derelict of his duties, which justifies a transition of presidential power according to the constitution. But the article that allows for such a transition in certain cases stipulates that ”a new election by universal suffrage and direct ballot shall be held within 30 consecutive days.”
To date, Guaido has run 145 days past his deadline to have elections held, and the opposition has made it clear they are not willing to accept new elections if Maduro runs.
This, of course, makes little dent in Guaido’s legitimacy in the eyes of the U.S. and other countries that have recognized his presidency. U.S. allies in Latin America have shown over the past few years that they have little regard for the sanctity of their constitutions. In 2017, a U.S.-backed candidate in Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernandez, ran for re-election in explicit violation of that country’s constitution and only wound up winning through fraud. Last week, Ecuador made the decision to allow the U.S. military to operate from an airfield in the Galapagos Islands despite a constitutional provision stating that the “establishment of foreign military bases or foreign facilities for military purposes shall not be allowed.”
Alexander Rubinstein is a staff writer for MintPress News based in Washington, DC. He reports on police, prisons and protests in the United States and the United States’ policing of the world. He previously reported for RT and Sputnik News.
So do we buddy, so do we. At least he acknowledges that Iraq did not have WMDs. Too bad about the almost one million deaths that came from the invasion: “It was a terrible decision to go into the Middle East. Terrible,” said Trump, adding “We’re now up to almost $8 trillion. And when we want to build a roadway, a highway, a school, or something, everyone’s always fighting over money. It’s ridiculous. So that was a bad decision.”
President Trump says he knows who was behind the September 11, 2001 attacks, telling ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos “Iraq did not knock down the World Trade Center,” adding “It were other people. And I think I know who the other people were. And you might also.”
Nearly 3,000 people died when 19 mostly-Saudi terrorists hijacked four passenger planes, flying them into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, while the fourth went down in a Pennsylvania field after passengers allegedly fought back. Astonishingly, the passports of three hijackers were recovered; two at the Pennsylvania crash site, and one from the World Trade Center grounds. While nobody claimed responsibility for the attacks for several months, the NSA and German intelligence reported intercepting communications pointing to al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, after which investigators linked the 19 hijackers to the terrorist organization.
Trump segued from his 9/11 comments into a criticism of America’s military intervention in the Middle East, calling it “the worst decision made in the history of our country,” and describing the region as “like quicksand.”
“It was a terrible decision to go into the Middle East. Terrible,” said Trump, adding “We’re now up to almost $8 trillion. And when we want to build a roadway, a highway, a school, or something, everyone’s always fighting over money. It’s ridiculous. So that was a bad decision.”
The US, backed by allies including Britain, invaded Afghanistan, where the terror group was being sheltered. But 9/11 was also used as part of the justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, more than 4,000 Americans and 179 British troops, and contributed to the rise of the Isis terror group. –Independent
Trump came under fire during the 2016 election when he claimed “There were people that were cheering on the other side of New Jersey, where you have large Arab populations,” adding “They were cheering as the World Trade Center came down.” Defending his comments, Trump pointed to a September 18, 2001 Washington Post article which reads “In Jersey City, within hours of two jetliners’ plowing into the World Trade Center, law enforcement authorities detained and questioned a number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the devastation on the other side of the river.”
in April after he tweeted a montage of the 9/11 attacks interspersed between Somali-American Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) downplaying the incident as “some people did something,” at a March 23 event for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
Donald J. Trump
WE WILL NEVER FORGET!
Also arrested in the aftermath of the attacks were the so-called five “Dancing Israelis” which locals reported were celebrating around New Jersey.
five of the Israelis came to the FBI’s attention after they were seen by New Jersey residents on Sept. 11 making fun of the World Trade Center ruins and going to extreme lengths to photograph themselves in front of the wreckage. The FBI seized and developed their photos, one of which shows Sivan Kurzberg flicking a cigarette lighter in front of the smouldering ruins in an apparently celebratory gesture. –Associated Press via Globe and Mail (2001)
In 2002, a “high-ranking American intelligence official” told Forward magazine that the men were “conducting a Mossad surveillance mission” – using their employer, Urban Moving Systems of Weehawken, NJ as a front. According to a 2002 report by ABC News, the FBI suspected the same.
The driver of the van, Sivan Kurzberg, told the officers, “We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem.” The other passengers were his brother Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner and Omer Marmari.
When the men were transferred to jail, the case was transferred out of the FBI’s Criminal Division, and into the bureau’s Foreign Counterintelligence Section, which is responsible for espionage cases, ABCNEWS has learned.
One reason for the shift, sources told ABCNEWS, was that the FBI believed Urban Moving may have been providing cover for an Israeli intelligence operation. –ABC News (2002)
The Israelis claimed to have been on a “working holiday” in the United States and were cleared by the FBI to return to Israel. During a media appearance on Israeli TV, one of the men said that they had been in New York at the time to “document the event” according to the 2002 ABC News report.
In May, the Trump administration complied with a FOIA request to provide redacted black-and-white photos of the men, however, they do not appear to shed much additional light.
The Donald Trump administration, aided and abetted by the Republican congressional conference, will go down in history as a regime of liars, grifters, dime store propagandists, common criminals, and schoolyard bullies. The evidence that “Team Trump” can and probably will lie the United States into a war with Iran, just as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney lied America into a war with Iraq, is seen in the latest tomfoolery regarding recent attacks on two tankers in the Gulf of Oman. The attacks follow by almost a month similar suspicious attacks on four ships at anchor in the Gulf of Oman, off the coast of the United Arab Emirates sheikhdom of Fujairah. Although Iran was blamed by members of the Trump administration for the May 12 attacks, no evidence was provided to bolster such claims.
Trump’s National Security Adviser John Bolton, a cartoon character-type warmonger who could have served as a role model for the fictional film “Wag the Dog” about a US war against Albania based on concocted falsehoods and a steady stream of televised propaganda, strongly appears to have had his fingerprints all over the June 13 attack on two ships transiting outbound from the Strait of Hormuz into the Gulf of Oman.
No sooner than had the story broken worldwide about the attack did Bolton’s partner-in-crime Secretary of State Mike Pompeo go before cameras to cast blame on Iran for attacking the ships with mines. Pompeo declared that “intelligence” determined that Iran carried out mine attacks on the Japanese-owned and Panamanian-flagged M/VKokuka Courageous and the Norwegian-owned and Marshall Islands-flagged M/VFront Altair. But whose intelligence? Pompeo did not claim that US intelligence concluded that Iran was responsible. Given Pompeo’s and Bolton’s close ties with the far right and uber-nationalist regime of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, the “intelligence” being relied on by Pompeo strongly appears to have been from Mossad and its team of video propagandists in Herzliya; Washington, DC; and Los Angeles.
Provoking a US military attack against Iran in a Gulf of Tonkin-style false flag operation is certainly a key part of the playbook of Bolton, Pompeo, and the team of neo-conservatives and pro-Israeli shills they have hired at the National Security Council and State Department. In addition, waging war through deception is an integral part of the strategy of the Israeli Mossad. Operation Susannah in 1954 was one such deceptive tactic used by the Mossad. American, British, and Egyptian targets in Egypt were bombed by Mossad agents with blame being cast on Egyptian Communists and members of the Muslim Brotherhood. The 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, an intelligence-gathering ship on patrol in the eastern Mediterranean was originally intended to be blamed on Egypt. The 1976 hijacking of an Air France plane and its diversion to Entebbe, Uganda was, according to British intelligence, a false flag attack planned by Israeli intelligence using Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) cut-outs to damage the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in the eyes of the French and Americans. And serious questions remain about Mossad’s role in the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center in New York.
Provoking a US military attack against Iran in a Gulf of Tonkin-style false flag operation is also not beyond the Bolton, Pompeo, and other top neo-cons like Special Representative for Iran Brian Hook and State Department Counter-terrorism Coordinator Nathan Sales.
Several facts point away from Iran being responsible for the attacks. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani was preparing to depart for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, when the attack on the ships occurred. There is zero chance that Iran would have engaged in such action while the president was traveling abroad. Although the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) was blamed by neo-con circles for the attack, it is IRGC policy not to interfere with commerce in the waterways of the region. That is because the IRGC, recently designated a “foreign terrorist organization” by the Trump administration, is invested in various commercial enterprises, including transportation, in Iran and Iraq. The IRGC also regularly deals with mitigating actual threats in the area, such as those coming from the Islamic State and Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), both groups being financed by Saudi Arabia. Launching unprovoked attacks on shipping would also affect the IRGC’s bottom line, hence the policy.
In addition, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was in Tehran when the ships were attacked. Abe was on a peace dialogue mission and was carrying a letter from Donald Trump to the Iranian Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It is noteworthy that the Kokuka Courageous is Japanese-owned and the Front Altair was transporting its cargo of highly-flammable naptha from Abu Dhabi to Japan at the time it was attacked. The Kokuka Courageous was transporting flammable methanol from Saudi Arabia to Singapore. A spokesman for the Japanese Trade Ministry in Tokyo stated the two ships were carrying “Japan-related cargo.” From Tehran, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said “suspicious doesn’t begin to describe” the attack on a Japanese-owned vessel during the visit of Abe to Iran.
Iranian television airborne television news cameras were able to capture video of the two ships burning from their flammable cargos. These videos, taken against a cloudless sky, were highlighted by the war-promoting Western news networks, including Fox News, CNN, MS-NBC, the BBC, and others to promote the meme that Iran carried out the attacks. But why would Iranian TV purposely provide the Western corporate media with such footage if they had clandestinely carried out the attacks? In addition, the crew of the Front Altair, consisting of 11 Russians, 11 Filipinos, and a Georgian, were rescued by the Iranian Coast Guard, treated for injuries, and transported to Bandar Abbas for flights home.
There are other more likely sources for the attacks on the vessels during the first visit to Iran in some 40 years for a Japanese prime minister. For example, the Saudis, Emiratis, and Israelis are all opposed to any talks between Washington and Tehran, whether they are mediated by Japan or another country. For example, the Saudis have previously pressed hard against Oman for entertaining a role as a mediator between the Trump administration and Iran.
Ironically, on the very same day the House Intelligence Committee was hearing evidence about the threat of “deep fake videos” during the upcoming presidential election campaign, the US Central Command (CENTCOM) released a grainy forward-looking infrared (FLIR) video, along with photographs, purporting to show a boat belonging to the IRGC removing an unexploded limpet mine from the side of the Kokuka Courageous. The Pentagon provided the video as “proof” of Iran’s culpability. However, the Pentagon was caught in a major Trump-grade lie when Yutaka Katada, the president of Kokuka Sangyo Marine, the company that owns the Kokuka Courageous, said the attack on his firm’s vessel did not come from a mine, but from a “flying shell.” The explosion was too far above the water line to have been from a mine, Katada told the press in Tokyo.
Pompeo told the press that “no proxy group operating in the area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication.” That was another falsehood. Israel maintains at least one Dolphin-class diesel-electric submarine on patrol in Persian Gulf waters at all times. These submarines are not only equipped with nuclear-armed missiles but conventional missiles, including the Popeye Turbo cruise missile, capable of causing the damage to the Kokuka Courageous and Front Altair. The Saudi naval fleet in the Persian Gulf consists of Al-Badr-class corvettes and Al Sadiq-class patrol boats armed with Harpoon surface-to-surface missiles capable of damaging the two merchant tankers. The UAE Navy’s Corvettes are armed with Exocet anti-ship missiles capable of damaging the tankers.
In addition, the terrorist cult group, Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), whose interests in Washington are represented by Bolton and Trump’s personal attorney, Rudolph Giuliani, has shown itself more than capable of carrying out terrorist attacks on Iranian targets along the Persian Gulf coast, with the support from Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. Bahrain is also home to a US and British naval bases. The MEK is opposed to any country maintaining relations or dialogue with the Iranian government and, like Bolton and Giuliani, seeks “regime change” in Tehran. While the Trump administration has labeled the IRGC a terrorist organization, it has dropped the terrorist brand for the MEK and allows it to operate freely in Washington, New York, and Los Angeles.
Pompeo, who is as adept a liar as Trump, said: “no proxy group operating in the area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication.” That, of course, means the opposite in Trumpland’s Orwellian “doublespeak,” which is to say, the MEK, with the support of the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, does have the resources and proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication.
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.
Scientists are warning that plans to “hack the Earth’s weather” could result in a third world war. If some countries take to the destruction of the Earth in the name of “climate change,” war could break out.
Although most elitists are in favor of geoengineering, which involves manipulating the atmosphere by blocking sunlight or isolating excess carbon, weather hacking in one region could have negative impacts in another and lead to global conflict,according to scientists. However, the United States has been using geoengineering unbeknownst to the masses for quite some time.
Scientists are now more concerned about “solar” geoengineering than the damages already done. Solar geoengineering refers to the attempts to block the sunlight with chemicals in order to try to cool down the globe. Solar geoengineering would involve spraying chemicals and/or heavy metals into the air that would block some of the sunlight. When speaking on the sun blocking topic, geoengineering researcher Juan Moreno-Cruz toldBusiness Insider: “The threat of war never is out of the question.”
Andrea Flossmann, a scientist at the World Meteorological Organization, explained in a WMO report: “The atmosphere has no walls. What you add may not have the desired effect in your vicinity, but by being transported along might have undesired effects elsewhere.” According to Fox News, Earth’s temperatures are set to soar to dangerous levels so a lot of scientists think the unknown consequences of geoengineering are worth the risk.
Once upon a time, all over the world, we saw fluffy white clouds in a blue sky. Today we see white lines and streaks, and many of us, in many countries, live under a layer of white haze. Children no longer know what real clouds look like, as the three basic cloud types are no longer seen. -No Natural Weather: Introduction to Geoengineering 101
The worst-case scenario is that Earth’s atmospheric chemistry is irreversibly altered and causes freak weather conditions like monsoons, hurricanes, and heat waves that could kill thousands and increase global tensions. Of course, we are already living through that now thanks to the unnatural geoengineering going on already.
“Stand back and consider: You can’t breathe without inhaling these [metal] particulates [used to reflect the sun’s rays]. They are completely saturating the air column. I assure you, this is building up in all of us. Lab tests prove this with hair, blood and urine . . . they are building up in all of us. Not only is it right here, right now, toxifying every breath we take, it is decimating the earth life support system, the protective layers of the atmosphere and the ozone layer. This is an all-out assault against life. This is being used as a weapon. These programs are not benevolent. In addition to being used as a weapon, climate engineering is being used to mask, and this is very important, it is being used to mask the full severity of climate collapse from the population by confusing and dividing people. . . . They are going to keep covering this up until the last possible moment.” –Dane Wigington
“Our citizens should know the urgent facts…but they don’t because our media serves imperial, not popular interests. They lie, deceive, connive and suppress what everyone needs to know, substituting managed news misinformation and rubbish for hard truths…”—Oliver Stone