Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 23 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H2'ed 7/3/19

Eve of Destruction: Iran Strikes Back

By       (Page 1 of 10 pages)     (# of views)   1 comment
Author 83077
Follow Me on Twitter     Message Jim Kavanagh
Become a Fan
  (21 fans)


(
Image by globalvillagespace.com)   Details   DMCA
- Advertisement -


(
Image by rusvesna.su)   Details   DMCA

- Advertisement -

It was a helluva week on the Iran front. It started with attacks on two tankers in the Gulf of Oman on June 13th and ended with Donald Trump ordering, and then calling off, a military attack on Iran on June 20-21. How we got from beginning to end of that chapter in the ongoing US-Iran saga is worth close consideration.

- Advertisement -

Studied Ambiguity

Like everyone else who can say "Gulf of Tonkin," "Remember the Maine," and "Iraqi WMDs," my instinctive reaction to the attacks on two tankers, a month after explosions hit four oil tankers in the UAE port of Fujairah, was: "Oh, come on now!" We know the United States, egged on by Israel and Saudi Arabia, has been itching to launch some kind of military attack on Iran, and we are positively jaded by the formula that's always used to produce a justification for such aggression.

It seemed beyond credibility that Iran would attack a Japanese tanker, the Kokuka Courageous, at the moment the Prime Minister of Japan was sitting down with Ayatollah Khamenei in Tehran. After all, Iran is eager to keep its oil exports flowing, so it would hardly want to so flagrantly insult one of its top oil customers.

Nor did it seem to make sense that Iran would target a Norwegian vessel, Front Altair. That tanker is owned the shipping company, Frontline, which belongs to Norway's richest man (before he moved to Cyprus), John Fredriksen. Fredriksen made his fortune moving Iranian oil during the Iran-Iraq war, where his tankers came under constant fire from Iraq, and were hit by missiles three times. He became known as "the Ayatollah's lifeline." Furthermore, as the Wall Street Journal reports, Fredriksen's Frontline company has continued to help Iran move its oil in a way that evades sanctions. A friendlier resource Iran has not. This is the guy Iran chose to target, in another gratuitous insult?

Then there's the smoky-gun "evidence": a grainy video of somebody doing something on the side of some ship, which looks like it came out of an episode of Ghost Hunters. I encourage everyone to read this Twitter thread, which includes the observations:

I count 10 people on board this vessel.
That also could very well be a magnetic mooring line they are removing, because we have such trash resolution on the video.
Lastly, these sailors clearly are working out of the mine clearance handbook:
"when clearing mines ensure that you have your 10 best friends standing behind you. That way if it blows they can catch you and you won't fall down."
Because they probably weren't clearing mines.

All of this--the history of US false-flags and war-justifying lies, the specifics of the targets hit, and the risibility of the evidence presented--made it very difficult for the Trump administration to assemble a critical mass of domestic or international consent for a military attack on Iran.

- Advertisement -

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8  |  9  |  10

 

- Advertisement -

Must Read 3   Valuable 2   Well Said 1  
Rate It | View Ratings

Jim Kavanagh Social Media Pages: Facebook Page       Twitter Page       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Former college professor, native and denizen of New York City. Blogging at www.thepolemicist.net, from a left-socialist perspective. Also publishing on Counterpunch The Greanville Post, Z, The Unz Review, and other sites around the net.

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Follow Me on Twitter     Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Israel's "Human Shield" Hypocrisy

The Rifle on the Wall: A Left Argument for Gun Rights

Charge of the Right Brigade: Ukraine and the Dynamics of Capitalist Insurrection

Edward Snowden, Lawrence O'Donnell, and the Failure of Fuzzy Land Thinking

Eve of Destruction: Iran Strikes Back

The New Privateers: Civil Forfeiture, Police Piracy, and the Third-Worldization of America

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

1 people are discussing this page, with 1 comments


crispy41

Become a Fan
Author 86194

(Member since Feb 27, 2013), 97 comments
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


  New Content

I agree with the author that Israel and it's hegemony over the region, are ultimately the reason behind Trump's actions and NOT Iran's nuclear nuclear program.

The author "dares" mentioning Isarel nuclear arsenal but stops short of arguing that Israel MUST let go of it as Iran agrees, in exchange, to NEVER acquire or manufacture nuclear weapons.

A nuclear-free Middle East should be the goal of a new treaty!

Nuclear disarmement talks in the Middle East should include all key states with ability to become nuclear powers and Israel: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Quatar, UAE, Egypt... should be at the table.

Currently the situation is imbalanced; Israel violated international proliferation treaties, and is perceived as a threat to its neighbors. With the help of China, the EU, Russia,the US(although it just lost credibility), France (?) and independent countries (Norway, Denmark, Barain) the global agreement is possible - but not without Israel giving up it's nuclear bombs and agreeing to never become a nuclear power again.

An offer by Israel to become nuclear free, along with concomitant sanctions relief would IMMEDIATELY STOP ALL RISKS and RUMORS OF WAR.

The current White House will never ask Israel to do that, so we're stuck.


Anyone thinking my plan is anti-Israel has a strange interpretation of the goal to accomplish.

Submitted on Friday, Jul 5, 2019 at 12:20:00 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 

 
Want to post your own comment on this Article? Post Comment