Under the headline ‘The
looming war with Iran‘, Perry writes;
Iran, just like Nazi Germany in the 1940s, will take the initiative and “help” the US president and the American public make up their mind by making the first move, by attacking a US aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf.The Iranian attack on an American military vessel will serve as a justification and a pretext for a retaliatory move by the US military against the Iranian regime. The target would not be Iran’s nuclear facilities. The US would retaliate by attacking Iran’s navy, their military installations, missile silos, airfields. The US would target Iran’s ability to retaliate, to close down the Strait of Hormuz. The US would then follow by targeting the regime itself.
Elimination of Iran’s nuclear facilities? Yes. This part would turn out to be the final act, the grand finale. It might have been the major target, had the US initiated the attack. However, under this “Pearl Harbor” scenario, in which Iran had launched a “surprise” attack on the US navy, the US would have the perfect rationalization to finish them off, to put an end to this ugly game.
Perry’s use of quotation marks around the word
“surprise” comes across as a literary device to imply that the so-called
“surprise” attack will not be a surprise at all.
Of course, the Pearl Harbor attack, which provided the
pretext for America’s formal entry into World War Two, was not a
“surprise” by any means, it was known well ahead of time.
Released
Freedom of Information Act files prove that weeks before the
December 7 attack by the Japanese, the United States Navy had
intercepted eighty-three messages from Admiral Yamamoto which gave them
details of precisely when and where the attack would take place.
It’s also completely nonsensical that Iran would
actively seek to provide the world’s pre-eminent nuclear superpower with
an easy excuse to justify an attack by deliberately targeting US
warships in the Persian Gulf. Perry’s article seems to be a
tongue-in-cheek admission that the US or Israel will manufacture such an
attack.
This presumption need not delve into the murky realm of
conspiracy theories – history tells us that fake naval attacks have been
staged on numerous occasions to hoodwink the American people into
supporting wars of aggression.
Remember the
Maine? The battleship USS Maine blew up while it was stationed in
Havana harbor in February 1898. Although a Navy investigation could not
find the cause of the explosion, the American media, led by pioneer of
“yellow journalism” William Randolph Hearst, immediately blamed Spanish
saboteurs, whipping the public into a war fever.
When Hearst sent his reporter Frederick Remington to
investigate, little of note could be established about the disaster.
When Remington asked to be recalled, Hearst told him, “Please remain.
You furnish the pictures, I’ll furnish the war.”
“Hundreds of editorials demanded that the Maine and
American honor be avenged. Many Americans agreed. Soon a rallying cry
could be heard everywhere — in the papers, on the streets, and in the
halls of Congress: “Remember the Maine! To hell with Spain.”
As a result of an incident that many consider to either
be an accident or a deliberate false flag attack by the US on its own
ship, the US was at war with Spain within months.
Over 60 years later, another staged naval event, the
Gulf of Tonkin incident, was used as a pretext for the United States to
launch the Vietnam war.
President Johnson told the American public that North
Vietnamese torpedo boats launched an “unprovoked attack” against a U.S.
destroyer on “routine patrol” in the Tonkin Gulf. Leaked cables and
recordings of White House telephone conversations later proved that
the incident was completely manufactured, and that “our destroyers were
just shooting at phantom targets — there were no PT boats there,”
according to Navy squadron commander James Stockdale, who was flying
over the scene that night.
There was almost a 21st century version mirror of the
Gulf of Tonkin incident in January 2008, when the US government
announced that it had been “moments” away from opening fire on a group
of Iranian patrol boats in the Strait of Hormuz after the boats
allegedly broadcast a warning that they were about to attack a US
vessel.
The Iranian warning later turned out to be of dubious
origin, but the incident led to a discussion in Vice-President Dick
Cheney’s office about how to start a war with Iran by launching a false
flag attack at sea, according to Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Seymour
Hersh.
The January 2008 Strait of Hormuz incident taught Cheney
and other administration insiders that, “If you get the right incident,
the American public will support it”. Hersh said: “There were a dozen
ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me
the most was why don’t we build, we in ‘our shipyard’, – build four or
five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a
lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of
Hormuz, start a shoot-up. Might cost some lives”.
Given the dangerous nature of overlapping
Iranian and US/Israeli naval drills set to take place in the same
region at some point within the next two weeks, the potential for
another staged incident at sea that will be exploited as a pretext for
war remains a potent threat.
No comments:
Post a Comment