FALSE FLAG OP IN THE STRAITS OF HORMUZ

The US, joined by its usual ally the UK, and invisibly by its partner Israelin all anti-Iran matters, has immediately accused Iran of attacking 2 tankers in the Hormuz Straits off the coast of Iran, where it had already sent an aircraft carrier. The immediacy of such accusations, backed by 'intel', should be viewed with great skepticism. The US has a history of such 'false-flag' operations, including Operation Northwoods (which was not carried out but replaced with other actions against Cuba), the Gulf of Tonkin incident with which it gave itself the pretext to attack North Vietnam (after already having drenched South Vietnam with Agent Orange), and more recently the Weapons of Mass Deception used to attack Iraq in 2003, following 9/11 which half-a-dozen books by Professor David Ray Griffin and others including Christopher Bollyn allege was unquestionably an 'inside job'; the 'incontrovertible' evidence of which has been dismissed as conspiracy theory, while the official US government theory that 19 Arabs successfully conspired to smash the security systems of the world's sole superpower blankets any open discussion of the 'real' facts. The ultra-right wing neo-cons of the W. Bush administration had discussed in their long-planned 'Project for a New American Century' or PNAC, the need for a 'catalyzing event', a 'New Pearl Harbour', to accelerate their plans to re-arrange the oil-rich Middle East, consonantly with the Israeli 'Oded Yinon' plan to create a 'Greater Israel' comprising chunks of smashed Muslim countries, that supposedly existed thousands of years ago according to the Old Testament. Iran, being the strongest of the ME countries, was the last target on the list, and its invasion has been delayed by the insurgency in Iraq which has cost the US trillions of dollars, which made 'boots on the ground' invasions of Libya and Syria (also abetted by Russia) impractical. That the US position is loaded with duplicity is also demonstrated by the fact that under Trump the US has broken a US-negotiated deal with broad international support including Europe and Russia, by which Iran was curtailing its nuclear activities in exchange for easing of US-imposed sanctions. Iran accepted this deal notwithstanding the fact that Israel is allowed to keep more than 100 nuclear weapons with not a word of Western protest, but rather massive support of every kind - financial, diplomatic, technological and military - by the US. The best option for Iran, and the most logical one, is to re-commence nuclear development. Its leaders have been painted as reactionary and unstable and impossible to trust with a nuclear bomb by the US and Israel for the plain and obvious reason that a bomb would neutralize much of US-Israeli threats and plans against Iran. Like the smaller and weaker North Korea, Iran would acquire a far more effective 'defense' against its enemies. A slightly older review of history, brazenly suppressed by Western media, is that Iran was the US's #1 ally in the ME between 1953 and 1979. 1953 was when the US and UK supported a coup d'etat in Iran, toppling a democrat and installing a puppet dictator (the Shah) who terrorized, tortured and killed thousands of Iranians, while having breakfasts flown in from Paris on the Concorde as his wife took baths in tubs of milk, while the population suffered as the pitiful oil revenues went to buying US weapons. Kissinger used his considerable influence to pressure US universities including MIT, to accept Iranians into nuclear engineering programs. But all that changed when the Iranians kicked out the Shah in 1979, when Iran went overnight from being US ally # 1 in the region to US enemy # 1. A war with Iran will continue the genocide of millions of Middle-Eastern Muslims, by an increasingly stretched and desperate superpower, anxious to keep its hands on the throttle.