Israel National News is reporting :
Egypt allowed at least one Israeli and 11 American warships to pass through the Suez Canal as an Iranian flotilla flotilla approaches Gaza.
What should we make of the fact that 11 U.S. warships and an Israeli warship are sailing up the Suez Canal on their way to the Red Sea?
This is - on the surface - a faceoff over Iran's support for relief ships trying to sail into Gaza. Specifically, Iran has said it will have Iranian military ships escort the flotilla providing humanitarian goods to Gaza to make sure it arrives safely. On the other hand, the U.S. has backed Israel's blockade of Gaza.
Tensions are obviously high between the U.S. and Israel, on the one hand, and Iran on the other. The U.S. and Israel have talked for years of bombing Iran's nuclear sites.
As the Telegraph wrote last July:
Israeli warships have deployed to the Red Sea for what has been described as a rehearsal for a possible attack on Iran
Media reports in Israel said the two Saar-class missile ships had been sent as a "message" to the Tehran government....Israeli and Egyptian officials said two ships had sailed through the Suez Canal into the Red Sea.
An armada of U.S. warships in the Red Sea is similarly meant to convey a credible threat to attack Iran.
Indeed, because the Red Sea connects with the Arabian Sea (and see this), a large navy presence in the Red Sea will escalate tensions dramatically.
This could quickly lead to a real confrontation. This is especially true because warships from hostile nations could be in very close quarters, and one mistake (such as accidentally bumping into a foreign ship) could unintentionally lead to war.
But we can't look at this faceoff in a vacuum.
Intelligence FailuresRemember that there have been numerous intelligence failures in the past which have led to war.
For example, the U.S. Navy's own historians now say that the sinking of the USS Maine -- the justification for America's entry into the Spanish-American War -- was probably caused by an internal explosion of coal, rather than an attack by the Spanish.
It is also now well-accepted that the Gulf of Tonkin Incident which led to the Vietnam war was a fiction (confirmed here).
And two lies were used to justify the 1991 Gulf War: the statement that Iraqis murdered Kuwaiti babies and the statement that a quarter of a million Iraqi troops were massed on the border with Saudi Arabia (see also this article)(technically, the statement about Kuwaiti babies did not come from the U.S. government, but from a public relations firm hired by the government).
Who Dunnit?
While - as documented above - inaccurate reports have helped rally support for war, other methods for drumming up support have been used as well.
As I wrote in February:
IranForget the claims and allegations that false flag terror - governments attacking people and then blaming others in order to create animosity towards those blamed - has been used throughout history.
This essay will solely discuss government admissions to the use of false flag terror.
For example:
- The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950's to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected president
- Israel admits that an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind "evidence" implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this)
- The well-respected former Indonesian president admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings
- The former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence admit that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: "You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security" (and see this)(Italy joined NATO in 1949, years before the bombings occurred)
- As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960's, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News Tonight with Peter Jennings [while the Joint Chiefs of Staff pushed for Operation Northwoods to be carried out, cooler heads prevailed; President Kennedy or his Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara apparently vetoed the plan]
There are many other instances of false flag attacks used throughout history proven by the historical evidence. See this, this and this. The above are only some examples of governments admitting to using false flag terror.
Many high-level people have warned of the use of a false flag attack to justify war with Iran. For example:
- Jimmy Carter's former National Security Adviser and Obama's initial foreign policy adviser- Zbigniew Brzezinski - told the Senate that a terrorist act might be carried out in the U.S. and falsely blamed on Iran to justify war against that nation
- Congressman Ron Paul told Congress: "I am concerned, however, that a contrived Gulf of Tonkin- type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran"
- And a member of the British Parliament (George Galloway) stated: "there is a very real danger" that the American government will stage a false flag terror attack in order to justify war against Iran
A war with Iran would benefit no one other than the giant defense contractors would plunge the world into a very deep depression (notwithstanding George W. Bush's sentiment to the contrary). Indeed, if China and Russia side with Iran, the U.S. might end up losing against Iran.
May cool heads prevail.
