Iran

[angelburst29]

The United States has started a psychological war in the region, the commander of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards said in a parliament session on Sunday, according to a parliamentary spokesman.

Iran Guards chief says Americans have started 'psychological war'

FILE PHOTO: The Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) transits the Strait of Gibraltar, entering the Mediterranean Sea as it continues operations in the 6th Fleet area of responsibility in this April 13, 2019 photo supplied by the U.S. Navy. U.S. Navy/Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Clint Davis/Handout via REUTERS

The USS Abraham Lincoln is replacing another carrier rotated out of the Gulf last month.

“Commander Salami, with attention to the situation in the region, presented an analysis that the Americans have started a psychological war because the comings and goings of their military is a normal matter,” the spokesman for the parliamentary leadership, Behrouz Nemati, said, summarizing the Guards’ commander’s comments, according to parliament’s ICANA news site.

Major General Hossein Salami was appointed as head of the Guards last month.


Iran's Guards commander says U.S. military presence in Gulf is 'an opportunity': ISNA

The United States' military presence in the Gulf used to be a serious threat but now it is an opportunity, a senior commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards said on Sunday, according to the Iranian Students' News Agency (ISNA).

“An aircraft carrier that has at least 40 to 50 planes on it and 6000 forces gathered within it was a serious threat for us in the past but now...the threats have switched to opportunities,” Amirali Hajizadeh, head of the Guards’ aerospace division said.

He added, “If [the Americans] make a move we will hit them in the head.”


Iran's Rouhani calls for unity to face 'unprecedented' U.S. pressure

President Hassan Rouhani called on Saturday for unity among Iran's political factions to overcome conditions which he said may be harder than those during the 1980s war with Iraq, state media reported, as the country faces tightening U.S. sanctions.


The source behind the main plot and the instigators pulling the strings ... warmongering Israel

Iran may attack Israel if U.S. standoff escalates: Israeli minister

An Israeli cabinet minister warned on Sunday of possible direct or proxy Iranian attacks on Israel should the stand-off between Tehran and Washington escalate.

... and Israel's chief architect of War ...

Israel's Netanyahu to ask for more time to form government: spokesman

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will ask Israel's president for more time to form a new government, a spokesman said on Saturday.

 

[angelburst29]

German government: We're working on maintaining legal channel for trade with Iran
Germany is working on maintaining a legal channel for trade with Iran, a government spokesman said on Monday, after Iran last week eased curbs on its nuclear program and threatened moves that might breach a 2015 international nuclear pact.

Pompeo to hold talks on Iran in Brussels en route to Russia

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will cancel the Moscow leg of his Russia trip, but will meet President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in the Black Sea resort of Sochi as planned on Tuesday, a State Department official said.

Britain warns of Iran-U.S. conflict, Pompeo meets Europeans

Iran and the United States could trigger a conflict by accident in an already unstable Gulf region, Britain's foreign minister said on Monday, as U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo held talks in Brussels with the main European powers on the crisis.

UK Foreign Minister Hunt warns U.S.-Iran conflict risk

Britain's Foreign Minister Jeremy Hunt warned on Monday of the risks of an unintended conflict between the United States and Iran over the unraveling nuclear deal.

Still no real conformation on the attack on a Saudi oil facility at this time.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1126970658561449984

A "warning" - just before the US - reinforces the threat? Besides, Pompeo can use "a little extra fuel" to pad his position, in talks with Brussels?

Saudi Arabia says its oil tankers among those hit off UAE coast

A damaged ANDREA VICTORY ship is seen off the Port of Fujairah, United Arab Emirates, May 13, 2019. REUTERS/Satish Kumar

Saudi Arabia said on Monday that two of its oil tankers were among those attacked off the coast of the United Arab Emirates and described it as an attempt to undermine the security of crude supplies amid tensions between the United States and Iran.

Slideshow (6 Images)
Saudi Arabia says its oil tankers among those hit off UAE coast

Iranian lawmaker says 'saboteurs from a third country' may be behind Fujairah explosions: IRNA
A senior Iranian lawmaker said on Monday that "saboteurs from a third country" could be behind explosions near Fujairah port in the United Arab Emirates.

UAE says four vessels subjected to 'sabotage' near Fujairah port
Four commercial vessels were targeted by "sabotage operations" near the territorial waters of the United Arab Emirates without causing casualties, the foreign ministry said on Sunday, without giving details of the nature of the sabotage.

Iran calls for investigation into incidents to ships near UAE: ISNA
Iran's foreign ministry spokesman called incidents on Sunday to ships near the coast of Fujairah "worrisome and dreadful", and asked for an investigation into aspects of the matter.

Gulf cooperation council condemns actions against four ships near UAE waters
The Gulf Cooperation Council for the Arab states condemned "sabotage operations" of commercial vessels near UAE territorial waters on Sunday.

Egypt condemns actions against four ships near UAE territorial waters
Egypt's foreign ministry on Sunday condemned what the United Arab Emirates called an act of sabotage against four ships near the UAE's territorial waters and said it stood by that country.

Iranian lawmaker says explosions at UAE port show Gulf security is fragile
A senior Iranian lawmaker said on Sunday that explosions near Fujairah port in the United Arab Emirates showed that the security of Gulf states is fragile.

Factbox: Strait of Hormuz - the world's most important oil artery

Saudi Arabia said on Monday that two Saudi oil tankers were among vessels targeted in a "sabotage attack" off the coast of the United Arab Emirates, condemning it as an attempt to undermine the security of global crude supplies.

~~~
Ironically, an Iranian backed Houthi group in Yemen have begun to withdraw forces from three key ports in Yemen to comply to a Hodeidah U.N. Peace agreement, to pave the way for political negotiations to end Yemen's four year war.

Yemen's Houthis to start Hodeidah withdrawal on Saturday: U.N.
Yemen's Houthi group intends to withdraw forces from three key ports in Yemen over four days, starting on Saturday, said a senior United Nations official in charge of monitoring the move.

Houthis offer for redeployment is inaccurate and misleading: Yemeni minister
The Yemeni information minister, Moammar al-Eryani, said on Twitter that the Houthi offer for redeployment from the ports of Hodeidah, Salif and Ras Isa is inaccurate and misleading.

U.N., Houthis say Yemen ports withdrawal to start on Saturday
Yemen's Houthi group will on Saturday start to unilaterally redeploy forces out of three key ports, the United Nations and a Houthi spokesman said, a move to pave the way for political negotiations to end Yemen's four-year war.

Houthis tell U.N. to press Saudi-led forces to implement Yemen peace deal
Yemen's Houthi movement called on the United Nations on Saturday to press the Saudi-led coalition to implement the Hodeidah agreement, al-Masirah TV said, citing the movement's political office.

Yemen's Houthis begin withdrawal from Hodeidah ports in boost to peace deal

Yemen's Houthi movement on Saturday started withdrawing forces from Saleef port in Hodeidah under a U.N.-sponsored deal stalled for months, a Reuters witness said, reviving hopes for peace efforts to end the four-year war.

U.N. says first day of Houthi withdrawal from Yemen ports went to plan

The first day of a withdrawal of forces by Yemen's Houthi movement from three of Yemen's Red Sea ports went "in accordance with established plans", the head of a U.N. mission to monitor the deal said on Sunday.

As Houthis quit ports, Yemen awaits next peace steps

Yemen's government wants the United Nations to give time-frames for next steps of a peace deal after Houthi forces began withdrawing from key ports in the most significant advance yet for efforts to end the four-year war and relieve hunger.

Yemen warring parties hold fresh talks as Houthis withdraw from Hodeidah

Yemen's warring parties started fresh U.N.-sponsored talks in Jordan on Monday, Yemeni officials said, two days after Houthi forces began withdrawing from the ports of Hodeidah, breaking a six month stalemate.

 

[Windmill knight]

The NYT is reporting that military officials have presented Trump with a plan to send up to 120,000 troops to the M.E. in case of a war on Iran.

U.S. Is Reportedly Readying To Deploy 120,000 Troops For War With Iran

UPDATE: President Trump denied reports that he is planning to send 120,000 troops to the Middle East in the event...

southfront.org

On top of that, an anonymous US official close to US intelligence claims that "Iran was likely behind the attack", that is the sabotage of Saudi and other ships.

US Accuses Iran Of Attack On Saudi Tankers

Originally appeared at ZeroHedge Update: Just as everyone with half a frontal lobe had expected, the WSJ reported late on...

southfront.org

And still, I don't think the war party is anywhere near close to succeed in twisting Trump's arm into having any serious military action against Iran. But maybe eventually he'll hit them with something symbolic - or maybe they'll manage to come up with something so spectacular that he won't have a choice. We'll see.

 

[angelburst29]

On top of that, an anonymous US official close to US intelligence claims that "Iran was likely behind the attack", that is the sabotage of Saudi and other ships.

U.S. suspects Iran in tanker attack but cannot prove it now: official
Iran is a leading candidate for having carried out attacks on four tankers near the United Arab Emirates but the United States does not have conclusive proof Tehran was behind them, a U.S. official familiar with American intelligence said on Monday.

U.S. Energy Department says oil markets well supplied after attack on ships off UAE
The U.S. Energy Department said on Monday that global oil markets are well supplied despite the attack on Sunday that damaged four vessels off the UAE coast, two of them oil tankers from Saudi Arabia.

Spain pulls frigate from U.S. Gulf mission amid differences over Iran
Spain has withdrawn a frigate from a U.S.-led naval group in the Gulf because it was now focusing on alleged threats from Iran rather than an agreed objective to mark an historic seafaring anniversary, the Spanish government said on Tuesday.

Saudi Arabia says oil facilities outside Riyadh attacked

Saudi Arabia said armed drones had struck two oil pumping stations in the kingdom on Tuesday in what it called a "cowardly" act of terrorism two days after Saudi oil tankers were sabotaged off the coast of the United Arab Emirates.

Iranian lawmaker blames 'Israeli mischief' for tanker attacks off UAE coast

FILE PHOTO: A damaged Andrea Victory ship is seen off the Port of Fujairah, United Arab Emirates, May 13, 2019. REUTERS/Satish Kumar

The tanker attacks off the coast of the United Arab Emirates were "Israeli mischief," an Iranian parliamentary spokesman said on Tuesday, according to the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA).

"The events that took place in the Emirates were Israeli mischief," Behrouz Nemati said, without providing any details on what role Israel may have played in the attacks.

Saudi Arabia said on Monday that two of its oil tankers were among those attacked off the coast of the Emirates and described it as an attempt to undermine the security of crude supplies amid tensions between the United States and Iran.

The UAE said on Sunday that four commercial vessels were sabotaged near Fujairah emirate, one of the world’s largest bunkering hubs lying just outside the Strait of Hormuz. It did not describe the nature of the attack or say who was behind it.

~~~
And then this odd report that gives the impression the Yemen Houthi group are responsible for the attacks on the oil tankers but the report fails to identify "the official" representing the Houthi's? Which begs the question - Why would the Houthi group attack Saudi Arabian and UAE oil tankers when the Houthi have agreed and are currently pulling out of Yemeni, in a deal to foster a UN Peace agreement? Is the report actually meant to damage the Houthi efforts towards Peace, while also attacking Iran?

Houthi-run TV says Yemeni group targeted vital Saudi installations
DUBAI (Reuters) - A television station run by Yemen’s Houthi group said on Tuesday the Iran-aligned movement had launched drone attacks on Saudi installations, without identifying the targets or time of the attacks.

Saudi Arabia offered no immediate confirmation of the report, which comes a day after Riyadh said two of its oil tankers were among four vessels attacked off the coast of the United Arab Emirates on Sunday.

The Masirah TV report cited a Houthi military official as saying that “seven drones carried out attacks on vital Saudi installations.”

It was not immediately clear if the Houthis, who are battling a Saudi-led military coalition in Yemen, were claiming responsibility for Sunday’s attack near Fujairah emirate, which lies just outside the Strait of Hormuz. UAE authorities have not described the nature of that attack or who was behind it.

The Houthis have repeatedly launched drone and missile attacks on Saudi Arabia and claimed to have launched drone attacks on the UAE.

On Twitter, Al Masirah cited the official as saying, “This large military operation is in response to the continued aggression and blockade of our people and we are prepared to carry out more unique and harsh strikes.”

Saudi Arabia and the UAE are leading the Western-backed Sunni Muslim alliance that intervened in Yemen in 2015 against the Houthis to try to restore the internationally recognized government ousted from power in the capital Sanaa in late 2014.

The conflict is widely seen in the region as a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. The Houthis deny being puppets of Iran and say their revolution is against corruption.

Iran's Zarif warns of risk from "extremist" individuals in U.S. government

Iran's foreign minister said on Tuesday that "extremist individuals" in the U.S. government were pursuing dangerous policies, amid a war of words with Washington over sanctions.

Articles from Arab News:

Satellite images show no major damage to ‘sabotaged’ ships May 12, 2019
The US has warned sailors of the potential for attacks on commercial sea traffic, and regional allies of the United Arab Emirates condemned the sabotage as the tankers were off the coast of the UAE port city of Fujairah.

The US Navy's 5th Fleet, which patrols the Mideast and operates from a base in Fujairah, has repeatedly declined to comment.

The US already had warned ships that “Iran or its proxies” could be targeting maritime traffic in the region. America is deploying an aircraft carrier and B-52 bombers to the Arabian Gulf to counter alleged, still-unspecified threats from Tehran.

(Comment - all the warnings issued by the US and yet, 4 oil tankers were sabotaged - right under the nose of the Navy's 5th fleet stationed in the same location? So, the US 5th fleet is so incompetent, it has to deploy another aircraft carrier and B-52 bombers to cover their slack? )

Four commercial vessels targeted by ‘sabotage’ near UAE waters: Foreign ministry May 12, 2019
DUBAI: Four commercial vessels were targeted by "acts of sabotage" near the territorial waters of the United Arab Emirates on Sunday morning, the UAE foreign ministry said in a statement amid rising tensions between neighboring Iran and the US.

The statement added the vessels, that were targeted near Fujairah and at a distance of 115 kilometers from Iran, were “civilian trading vessels of various nationalities”, and that the UAE was investigating the incident with local and international bodies.

Rumors about ships inside the port being sabotaged were unfounded, the ministry added.

The port of Fujairah continues to operate as normal and there were no victims of the sabotage incident.

The ministry added that targeting merchant ships and threatening the lives of crew members is a “dangerous development,” and that the government considers the acts of sabotage to be a threat to the safety and security of the UAE.

The country called on the international community to prevent any party from compromising maritime safety and security.

The ministry statement was tweeted by the official news agency WAM.

Lebanon’s pro-Iran satellite channel Al-Mayadeen falsely reported that a series of explosions had struck Fujairah’s port, and the reports were repeated by state media in Iran.

Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh, head of the Iranian Parliament’s national security committee, said the “explosions” showed that the security of Gulf states was “like glass.”

The sabotage incident follows a US Maritime Administration warning last week that Iran could target commercial sea traffic. “Since early May, there is an increased possibility that Iran and/or its regional proxies could take action against US and partner interests, including oil production infrastructure, after recently threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz,” the organization said.

“Iran or its proxies could respond by targeting commercial vessels, including oil tankers, or US military vessels in the Red Sea, Bab El Mandeb or the Arabian Gulf.”

Bahrain condemned the acts of sabotage, saying it was a "criminal act" that threatened maritime traffic in the region. The kingdom said it stood with the UAE.

The US deployed the Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier strike group and B-52 bombers to the region on May 4 in response to what it said was an “escalated threat” from Iran.

A senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander issued a veiled threat on Sunday to the US military presence in the Gulf.

“An aircraft carrier that has at least 40 to 50 planes on it and 6,000 forces gathered within it was a serious threat for us in the past but now it is a target and the threats have switched to opportunities,” said Amirali Hajjizadeh, head of the Guards’ aerospace division. “If they make a move we will hit them in the head.”
Earlier on Sunday, the UAE emirate of Fujairah denied media reports that claimed a series of explosions had rocked its port on Sunday.

Claims from a number of news outlets, which were then shared on social media, said there had been explosions on Sunday morning and that fires had broken out on some of the docked oil tankers in the port.

Fujairah government’s media office tweeted a statement on Sunday denying there had been any explosions and that operations were continuing as normal.

It also called on media organizations to be “accurate” in their reporting and to only publish information once it was “confirmed by official sources.”

The harbor master of Fujairah port, who had been on shift at the time, also confirmed that there was no truth to the reports.

So, who do you believe? Was there sabotage or is it an elaborate story to incite tension against Iran?

 

[angelburst29]

The NYT is reporting that military officials have presented Trump with a plan to send up to 120,000 troops to the M.E. in case of a war on Iran.

Trump denies U.S. plan to send 120,000 troops to counter Iran threat

President Donald Trump on Tuesday denied a New York Times report that U.S. officials were discussing a military plan to send up to 120,000 troops to the Middle East to counter any attack or nuclear weapons acceleration by Iran.

U.S. and Iran do not want war, Iraqi PM says

Neither the United States nor Iran want war and Iraq is in contact with both, Iraq's state news agency INA quoted Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi as saying on Tuesday.

No increased threat from Iran-backed militia in Iraq, Syria: British general
There has been no increase in the threat from Iran-backed militia against US-led coalition forces fighting remnants of Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, a senior British officer in the coalition told a Pentagon news briefing on Tuesday.

British general declines to restate remarks on Iran-backed militia threat
A senior British officer in the U.S.-led coalition battling Islamic State in Iraq and Syria would not reiterate that he perceived no increased threat from an Iran-backed militia, when reporters pressed him about remarks he had made moments earlier at a Pentagon news briefing on Tuesday.

Indications from U.S. and Iran that "things will end well": Iraqi PM

Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi said on Tuesday he was getting indications from talks with both the United States and Iran that "things will end well" despite the current ramping up of rhetoric from both sides.

 

[Ca.]

So, who do you believe? Was there sabotage or is it an elaborate story to incite tension against Iran?

Who benefits the most? Looks like the Saudis keep the cash cow going for their illegal activity's in the middle east at a slightly better price today. Not to mention the capacity of the DS to move money, munitions, and God knows what to third party mercenaries.

I think the cherry on the cake, would be a false flag in the states. An obvious situation to insight the US population via the Neocon Leftist, (get Trump), AIPAC the MIC., and Wall Street. "They" will also include some BS about the Russian boogie man having a hand in it all (as usual). A Win Win poker hand for the Political psychopath's as well.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

www.bloomberg.com

Oil rose as Saudi Arabia reported drone attacks on pumping stations, the latest escalation in Middle East tensions after tankers were hit by sabotage over the weekend.

Futures gained 1% in New York, reversing Monday’s drop. Unidentified drones attacked two pumping stations belonging to Saudi Aramco, forcing the state oil company to suspend operations in the area to assess what the kingdom said was a “limited” impact. That follows damage to oil tankers anchored off the United Arab Emirates on Sunday.

• Aramco has suspended some operations after ‘limited’ damage
• WTI crude futures climb 1% to $61.62 a barrel in New York

Oil volatility has jumped this month as crude is buffeted by the specter of a full-blown trade war on the demand side, while a combustible Middle East and production disruptions from Norway to Nigeria are throwing the supply outlook into doubt. U.S. drilling activity and a pending decision by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies on whether output curbs will be extended are taking a back seat to the various crises.

“We are witnessing a tussle between economic concerns and tightening oil-market balance,” said Tamas Varga, an analyst at PVM Oil Associates Ltd. in London.

West Texas Intermediate crude for June delivery advanced 58 cents to $61.62 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange at 8:42 a.m. local time. The contract closed down 62 cents at $61.04 on Monday.

Brent for July settlement was up 1.3% at $71.17 a barrel on the London-based ICE Futures Europe exchange, after losing as much as 0.4% earlier. The global benchmark contract traded at a $9.37 premium to WTI.

Pump stations eight and nine on the East-West pipeline, which carries oil from Saudi Arabia’s eastern province to the Red Sea port of Yanbu, were attacked by armed drones, Energy Minster Khalid Al-Falih said in a statement. That ignited a fire that caused minor damage to station number eight, but it was eventually brought under control.

Exports Continue

Aramco took precautionary measures and temporarily stopped the pipeline, and is now evaluating the situation and working on restoring operations, according to the statement. Exports of crude oil and products are continuing as normal, Al-Falih said.

Houthi rebels in neighboring Yemen -- who have long received backing from Iran -- said earlier that they had targeted key Saudi installations with drones.

While the precise nature of the attacks on pumping stations or tankers remains unclear, they amplify tensions in the region. Antagonism between the U.S. and Iran intensified this month after President Donald Trump ended exceptions to sanctions on Iranian oil sales.

The Islamic Republic has previously threatened to block oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz if the sanctions halt its energy exports.

The U.S. deployed an aircraft carrier, bomber planes and defense missiles to the region last week.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1128329111548649473

https://twitter.com/x/status/1128342755300773888

 

[goyacobol]

The tanker attacks off the coast of the United Arab Emirates were "Israeli mischief," an Iranian parliamentary spokesman said on Tuesday, according to the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA).

And then this odd report that gives the impression the Yemen Houthi group are responsible for the attacks on the oil tankers but the report fails to identify "the official" representing the Houthi's? Which begs the question - Why would the Houthi group attack Saudi Arabian and UAE oil tankers when the Houthi have agreed and are currently pulling out of Yemeni, in a deal to foster a UN Peace agreement? Is the report actually meant to damage the Houthi efforts towards Peace, while also attacking Iran?

The "Israeli mischief" sounds very plausible to me. It makes me think they could also be fostering the Houthis claims to keep things stirred up. I have no proof of the Houthi connection yet though.

 

[Gruchaa]

Guys do you think that US will soon attack Iran? Finally they will find some „argument” or they will create their own. What your thoughts?

 

[Ca.]

Guys do you think that US will soon attack Iran? Finally they will find some „argument” or they will create their own. What your thoughts?

Anything is possible. Eye's wide open.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1128705704305594370

These two twitter's accounts are pro State Deep. So take it with a grain of sand.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1128356276306677760

https://twitter.com/x/status/1127965179394842625

https://twitter.com/x/status/1128372782344097793

 

[Oxajil]

Guys do you think that US will soon attack Iran? Finally they will find some „argument” or they will create their own. What your thoughts?

I've been following developments, and so far I don't think it's likely there will be a direct attack. Some interesting tidbits:

Diplomatic sources – from Russia and Iran – confirm, off the record, there have been secret talks among the three pillars of Eurasian integration – Russia, China and Iran – about Chinese and Russian guarantees in the event the Trump administration’s drive to strangle Tehran to death takes an ominous turn.

This is being discussed at the highest levels in Moscow and Beijing. The bottom line: Russia-China won’t allow Iran to be destroyed.

Source

The Leader further said any confrontation between the US and Iran would not be “a military one,” and that “there was not going to be any war.”

“The Iranian nation’s definite option will be resistance in the face of the US, and in this confrontation, the US would be forced into a retreat,” Ayatollah Khamenei said. “Neither we nor they, who know war will not be in their interest, are after war.”

Source

“The Americans will be driven out of Iraq. Iraq exports 4 million barrels of oil a day; that would probably come to an end, through strikes and other means. It would be catastrophic for the Americans. It would be catastrophic for the world – and for Iran as well. But the Americans would simply not win.”

So as Marandi explains it — and Iranian public opinion now largely agrees — the Islamic Republic has leverage because they know “the Americans can’t afford to go to war. Crazies like Pompeo and Bolton may want it, but many in the establishment don’t.”

Tehran may have developed a modified MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) framework as leverage, mostly to push Trump ally MbS to cool down. “Assuming,” adds Marandi, “the madmen don’t get the upper hand, and if they do, then it’s war. But for the time being, I think that’s highly unlikely.”

Source

From the same article, here's what Trump said:

“We hope we don’t have to do anything with regard to the use of military force…We can make a deal, a fair deal. … We just don’t want them to have nuclear weapons. Not too much to ask. And we would help put them back into great shape. They’re in bad shape right now. I look forward to the day where we can actually help Iran. We’re not looking to hurt Iran. I want them to be strong and great and have a great economy… We have no secrets. And they can be very, very strong, financially. They have great potential.”

I'd think that personally, Trump doesn't want a war to take place. (Though the economic warfare is taking a toll on Iranian citizens, and he could've called Iran himself, instead of giving his number to the Swiss in case Iranian officials want to call him!). It's mostly Bolton and Pompeo (and other Swamp creatures ) who seem to have an obsession with wanting to destroy Iran. Of course, this whole nuclear thing with Iran has been going on for a long time with threats here and there, but they've learned not to trust US/EU (Deep State) officials and they are prepared if something were to happen, and if it does happen, it could be a lose-lose situation. FWIW.

 

[Oxajil]

During a meeting with the Austrian President, Putin said the following about the nuclear deal:

Iran Nuclear Deal

Addressing the recent escalation around Iran, Putin lamented the collapse of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, also known as the Iran nuclear deal.

The president said that he did not think that it would be right for Iran to withdraw from the agreement, because it would immediately be accused of killing the deal, even though it would have been the US that provoked the collapse.

"I have repeatedly said in conversations with [our] Iranian partners that, in my opinion, it would be more rational for Iran to remain in this treaty, no matter what. Because as soon as Iran takes the first steps in response [to the US' exit from the JCPOA], declares that it is withdrawing, tomorrow everyone will forget that the United States was the initiator of the destruction, and everything will be blamed on Iran", he told reporters.

Putin noted that Iran was and is "the most monitored and transparent" country in the world after signing the deal in 2015 and said that he had spoken to the chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), who told him that Tehran is complying with its obligations.

At the same time, he said that the future of the deal does not depend only on Russia for it's not "a firefighting squad. We cannot rescue everything, especially when it depends on others as well. We did our part. We are ready to continue playing a positive role".

I didn't think of it that way (bolded part), but it does make sense. It's a good point!

 

[angelburst29]

Trump doesn't want War ...

May 15 2019 - Report: Trump Considering Replacing Bolton

US President Donald Trump is considering replacing his hawkish National Security Adviser John Bolton over his plans to push the United States towards a military conflict with Iran, Venezuela and North Korea, according to a report.

 

[Windmill knight]

I've been following developments, and so far I don't think it's likely there will be a direct attack. [...]

I'd think that personally, Trump doesn't want a war to take place. (Though the economic warfare is taking a toll on Iranian citizens, and he could've called Iran himself, instead of giving his number to the Swiss in case Iranian officials want to call him!). It's mostly Bolton and Pompeo (and other Swamp creatures ) who seem to have an obsession with wanting to destroy Iran. Of course, this whole nuclear thing with Iran has been going on for a long time with threats here and there, but they've learned not to trust US/EU (Deep State) officials and they are prepared if something were to happen, and if it does happen, it could be a lose-lose situation. FWIW.

I agree. The bottom line is that if you want to start a war you have to measure cost vs benefit. In the case of the US, they could presumably take down Iran - but at what cost? Politically, economically, militarily, it would be too much. That's why the US with all its military might will only invade isolated and weak countries that they estimate can be easily brought to their knees. I'm sure Trump understands this, and I don't see him willing to pay for yet another set of broken dishes. The Boltons and Pompeos of course are a different story, so for a war to happen they would have to find a way to force Trump into accepting it. In the meantime, all sorts of dirty tricks are on the table. They're 'cheap', so Trump will not oppose those. All of this applies to Venezuela too, by the way.

 

[fabric]

Trump doesn't want War ...

Well that’s interesting. I came across this article, where yours truly (Bolton) apparently had his hands in the pie. So although the plan is to get some troops over there, the time and costs involved look pretty steep. Something that Trump probably isn’t too keen on.

Leaked Pentagon plan calls for sending 120,000 troops to the Middle East against Iran

As Michael Pompeo travels to Brussels to discuss the Iranian threat amid a flare-up in tensions that has brought the US to the brink of an armed conflict, the New York Times has published details from a confidential military plan presented to top national security officials that envisions sending as many as 120,000 troops to the Middle East should Iran attack American forces or start ramping up work on nuclear weapons (something it has promised to do if its European partners don't meet their commitments under the Iran deal).

Though the revised plan - it had been modified to incorporate suggestions from John Bolton - doesn't include plans for a land invasion, it does reflect "the influence of Mr. Bolton, one of the administration's most virulent Iran hawks, whose push for confrontation with Tehran was ignored more than a decade ago by President George W Bush."

It's unclear whether Trump himself has seen, or been briefed on, the plan. Asked about it, Trump said "we'll see what happens with Iran. If they do anything, it would be a very bad mistake."

Here are a few key details from the plan according to more than a half-dozen senior administration officials who spoke with the NYT:

• The 120,000 troops called for in the plan would be close to the size of the force that invaded Iraq in 2003. The reversal of the US troop presence in the region under Obama and Trump has reportedly emboldened leaders in Tehran and the IRGC that there's no appetite in the US for a war with Iran. Deploying this many troops would take weeks or months.
• The most likely trigger for a US military response is still an attack by the IRGC The guard's fleet of small boats has a history of approaching American Navy ships at high speed. Though the plan includes provisions for a US response if Iran once again starts stockpiling nuclear fuel. If Iran does start stockpiling enriched uranium again, the US would have more than a year to formulate a more coherent response, since it would take at least that long for Iran to stockpile anything close to enough to fashion a weapon.
• Cyberweapons would be used to paralyze the Iranian economy during the opening salvo of the conflict, in the hopes that this would be enough to cripple Iran before any bombs were dropped. Such an operation would call for "implants" or "beacons" inside US networks. Though, given Iran's increasingly sophisticated cyberweapons, such an attack would still pose "significant risks."
• This is not the first time since joining the administration that Bolton has sought updated plans for an invasion of Iran. Though it's widely believed that the president remains opposed to such an incursion. Bolton requested an update after Iranian-backed militants fired three mortar shells into an empty lot on the grounds of the US embassy in Baghdad.
• One of the options offered up as a proportional response was a strike on a Iranian military facility that would have been "mostly symbolic."

While a war with Iran still seems unlikely, if Iran starts stockpiling enriched uranium again as it has threatened to do, it could give Bolton and his fellow neocons exactly the opening they need to successfully push for a military intervention.

Unless, of course, he gets sacked. Although, the question remains - will his replacement be any better? I doubt it since the whole place is crawling with warhawks.

 

[angelburst29]

I agree. The bottom line is that if you want to start a war you have to measure cost vs benefit. In the case of the US, they could presumably take down Iran - but at what cost? Politically, economically, militarily, it would be too much. That's why the US with all its military might will only invade isolated and weak countries that they estimate can be easily brought to their knees. I'm sure Trump understands this, and I don't see him willing to pay for yet another set of broken dishes. The Boltons and Pompeos of course are a different story, so for a war to happen they would have to find a way to force Trump into accepting it, so for a war to happen they would have to find a way to force Trump into accepting it. In the meantime, all sorts of dirty tricks are on the table. They're 'cheap', so Trump will not oppose those. All of this applies to Venezuela too, by the way.

If you follow developments closely, a pattern emerges where Pompeo, Bolton and I have to add - "Acting" Defense Secretary Shanahan in this power-play, have been working on Trump in increments - step by step - in an elaborate scheme - in laying the groundwork for a direct confrontation with Iran. They have been using the Nuclear Treaty as a spring board and excuse to impose various Sanctions on Iran and it's affiliates, along with psychological warfare through media proxies like The New York Times and Times of Israel syndicates.

Bolton and Shanahan have been using the Press (so called Pentagon leaks) to move their plans forward, while Pompeo has been doing the leg work using up flyer-miles in direct contacts, manipulating pieces on their strategic chessboard. Of note, the Senate has yet to approve Shanahan's nomination by Trump. Trump or the Senate can still pull the plug on Shanahan and replace him. So, there might be more than Bolton - shown the exit door.

Well that’s interesting. I came across this article, where yours truly (Bolton) apparently had his hands in the pie. So although the plan is to get some troops over there, the time and costs involved look pretty steep. Something that Trump probably isn’t too keen on.

Leaked Pentagon plan calls for sending 120,000 troops to the Middle East against Iran

Trump didn't take "the bait" on this one and quickly followed up with a rebuttal. I agree, the Pentagon is sending out signals for more troops to be sent to the Middle East, while Trump is trying to reduce the numbers but as far as the time and costs involved - calculate NATO "on the ground and fully stocked and in position" months in advance now. NATO's major build up has been near Russian Borders but has also reinforced boundaries within range of Iran, with heavy military equipment in Iraq and moving their prized "terrorists" from Syria via Afghanistan to Iraq.

Trump denies U.S. plan to send 120,000 troops to counter Iran threat

Pompeo's activities recently have been very transparent. Pompeo was scheduled to be in Russia this Monday May 13 - to perform certain diplomatic activities and on Tuesday May 14th, a second meeting was scheduled with Sergey Lavrov - before both met with President Putin in Sochi.

Pompeo cancelled his trip to Russia on Monday. Instead, he flew to Brussels for a personal meeting with NATO's Stoltenberg.
Tuesday, Pompeo flew to Russia - just in time for a meeting with Lavrov and then they both met with President Putin. Pompeo actually pulled "a Diplomatic snub and slap in the face to Russia" - by not showing up on Monday. Do you seriously think, Putin and Lavrov are blind to the antics Pompeo is pulling off - while he displays that stupid smirk on his face? Lavrov has to be a "living Saint" - I would have decked Pompeo the moment he walked into the room! Yet, Putin and Lavrov acted very professional and Diplomatic through out the meetings.

Lavrov to discuss Venezuela, Iran and Syria with Pompeo on May 14

Diplomat comments on Lavrov’s agenda for talks with Pompeo
Pompeo's visit to Moscow was planned for May 13, however, the US Secretary of State postponed it to meet with the EU Representatives over the Iranian nuclear deal in Brussels. After these talks Pompeo will come to Sochi, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov told TASS.

Pompeo was expected to begin his visit to Russia with a meeting with the US embassy staff in the Russian capital. Then, it was planned that he would meet the US business leaders working in Russia, as well as the American education exchange programs participants. Following these meetings, the US top diplomat was supposed to lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier by the Kremlin Wall.

Pompeo's Brussels meeting with NATO's Stoltenberg. May 13, 2019
https://twitter.com/jensstoltenberg/status/1127963328305930241


In my view, everything is being set-up to support Israel's war with Iran? It will be Netanyahu who fires the first Nuclear Missile into Iran! US troop deployment - either by air, sea or land - will be cannon-folder along with Iranian casualties. Iran will be wiped off the map - much like what happened in Japan - but on a much larger and wider scale!!! An extinction event that will affect the whole World.
Netanyahu won't stop firing Nuclear Warheads until the atomic impact splits Iran into a separate planet ... while thrusting our World into a different orbit - away from the Sun? Nuclear Winter, indeed - the Earth will be frozen over for eons! How's that for Climate change?