In the following is our translation of an analysis by Ivan Danilov from RIA Novosti with commentary and notes in [brackets] by Vince Dhimos.
We recall Trump’s threat to Assad over a “chemical attack” that turned out never to have happened. He seemed prepared to launch an air attack like the ones that killed over a 100,000 Iraqis in the Bush era. Then there was North Korea: “we will destroy your country.” It was a scary time. Then there was the threat to invade Venezuela. It kept the whole world up at night. Then once the Russians showed up, it was all but forgotten. It was like the boy who cried wolf.
So what is different about this threat to Iran? Well, for one thing, Trump had blasted Iran throughout his campaign. I suspected he was already building up to a war even then. Yet there was euphoria over his potential as a “peace” candidate because he lambasted GW Bush for his warlike stance and in one memorable moment, said to Jeb “you just want to kill people.” Surely Trump was different? Either that or a con artist.
But it has long been my observation that there is no such thing as a “different” president ever in the US. I identified a group of agents that run America (and I would like to call them foreign agents because, while they are ensconced in the US Establishment and are household names, they are alien to American sentiments and ideals), independently of presidents and of the US people. Which is why there can be no talk of “democracy” in the US. No American has the right to call the US a democracy. They all should know better by now. Yet very few do. People love to be lied to.
Americans remind me of Jeremiah: The prophets prophesy lies, the priests rule by their own authority, and my people love to have it so. These words were not about the Hebrews. And they’re not about Americans. They’re about people, just people, everywhere. People want to be ruled but have never grasped the idea of ruling themselves. It’s too hard, it makes my head hurt. It takes an expert to make decisions that affect my life, especially on foreign policy. What do I know? What the people don’t realize is that the folks they hired to know things know nothing and could care less because their constituents can be conned indefinitely. Lincoln was wrong. You can fool essentially all the people all the time. The “leaders” are supporting Israel, Saudi Arabia, the bankers, the arms manufacturers, Big Business, everyone but the poor American sucker who dutifully pulls the levers that hire them, in the steadfast belief that they the voters are good citizens, and that the chosen ones, whether Candidate A or Candidate B, can all be counted on to further bankrupt the nation and make it hopelessly insecure on behalf of Saudi, Israel and the arms manufacturers, and universally distrusted. But who cares? My people love to have it so.
I showed yesterday that the Israeli leadership now brazenly admits it wants to drag the US into its war on Iran. And the American public will be a pushover because 80% of US Evangelicals believe that the murderous, apartheid secular state calling itself Israel was given its land by God (the cult of “Christian” Zionism) and did not receive it by terrorizing the Arabs who once lived there in peace, by slaughtering whole families, moms, dads and kids, and thus scaring the survivors away. Your pastor didn’t mention the Nakba, did he? But he might mention the Holocaust and take you on a Holy Land tour next year that will make him a nice profit and will keep you safely away from Palestine. He knows the truth could make you free and we can’t have that.
Bush’s war on Iraq was as much for Israel and Saudi as for anything else. Trump’s upcoming war is for Israel too, but <shhh> you’re supposed to believe Trump is different.
You know what? If you really want to vote for a presidential candidate who is different, wait until a candidate declares in his campaign: I will not make your sons and daughter fight a war for Israel or Saudi Arabia.
Now that would be different. Unfortunately, that candidate would lose the election.
At any rate, if a catastrophic war scenario develops, as Russian analyst Ivan Danilov seems to expect, perhaps Trump voters will remember how they voted for this “different” candidate who seemed assured of bringing peace at last. But most likely, as in the case of GW Bush, they will not remember.
My people love to have it so. Jeremiah 5:31
US prepares to send "500 missiles a day" to Iran and advertises our air defence
May 17, 2019
Donald Trump's entourage is approaching one of its main foreign policy goals: the war with Iran, and leaks about how the Washington hawks are going to win this war are published in the American media. Judging by the plans that Newsweek and the New York Times openly write about, history has taught little to the most radical part of the presidential administration [note that, like many US journalists, government-connected journalists in Russia almost never directly criticize Trump, always suggesting that his advisers are to blame. In reality, Trump is just as radical as they are]. Many in the White House really believe that a lightning-fast and victorious war, virtually inviting an American loss, can be organized against Iran, and a positive result is expected to be obtained not just quickly, but literally in a matter of days.
There are two logical explanations for this over-optimism. Explanation one: supporters of the solution by force of the “Iran issue” are confident that Iran is so weak that its surrender can be ensured with just one blow, after which the Iranian leadership will simply be unable to retain power. The second explanation is more probable: supporters of violent action against Iran are well aware that there will be no “lightning victory,” but it is important for them to convince Trump at any cost to start a war, and for this you need to actively lie that it will be quick and easy.
It is indicative that the traditional American "pre-war scheme," which uses a gradual intensification of media and diplomatic hysteria based on releases of "intelligence information" about the growing threat to the future victim of American aggression, is no longer operative. Despite all the efforts of the American media and the intelligence community, even representatives of American allies who helped them to bathe Serbia, Libya and Iraq in blood, say that the American "information" about the Iranian threat is not confirmed. If even the British Guardian, referring to a briefing by its local leader of the “operation against ISIS,*” criticizes the American preparations for war with Iran, this means that on the information and diplomatic front, Washington is not doing the right thing. “A senior British general (working. - Ed.) In the US-led coalition against ISIS*, said that the threat from Iranian forces in Iraq or Syria is not increasing. This directly contradicts the US claims used to justify the military build-up in the region,” writes the Guardian.
The American magazine Newsweek describes the views of the American war hawks on how Iran will be forced to surrender: "A source at the Pentagon said that options suggest a powerful campaign of rocket attacks in an attempt to bring Tehran to the negotiating table with Washington." It depends on an escalation of strength. But, regardless of Iran’s bravado, when you get 500 rockets a day, it hurts you a lot, which is the goal. When your opponent is weak, you get more," said one official familiar with the plans."
At the same time, although the interlocutors of Newsweek argue that the current actions (with the transfer of not only missiles but 120,000 American soldiers to the Persian Gulf zone, "in case of escalation") are not at all a signal of imminent war, common sense and the historical experience of the last 30 years indicate that Washington is clearly preparing for a scenario of force. And it will be the initiator of the transition to the "hot" phase of the conflict.
The most influential (and often very well-informed) American publication The New York Times reports that the White House is consciously trying to bring the situation to a real armed conflict: "One American official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that new intelligence about the increased threat from Iran does not merit the planning of the war carried out by Bolton (presidential adviser on national security. – author’s comment). The official also said that the ultimate goal of the campaign of economic sanctions imposed by the Trump administration last year, was to draw Iran into armed conflict with the United States. "
One would traditionally assume that the interests of the Trump administration are oil interests, especially since military interventions against oil-exporting countries are a long-standing American practice. However, in this case, the reasons should rather be sought on a political plane. The US president came to power not only because of the wave of popular discontent with the Obama administration’s economic policies, but also because of the very clear obligations that he assumed in terms of a radical solution to the “Iranian problem.” These promises played an important role in the support that Trump received from the American military-industrial lobby and from other players behind the scenes of American politics [Danilov, like all government-approved Russian authors, avoids direct reference to Israeli involvement in misdeeds. Hence “other players”]. Now, apparently, the time has come to pay the bills - even despite the fact that in economic terms any military intervention against Iran will become a source of very serious problems of not only an economic, but also a military nature. And regardless of the fact that unreasonably optimistic Pentagon planners think and argue otherwise.
Meanwhile, a war with Iran would inevitably lead to an increase in oil prices. And not only because of the reduction of Iranian exports, but also because navigation in the Persian Gulf would be at risk. In addition, within the framework of an “asymmetric response” to American aggression, key elements of Saudi Arabia’s oil (both processing and pipeline) infrastructure may find themselves attacked by pro-Iranian forces.
Perhaps the prospect of a real energy crisis in the pre-election period (which will greatly influence prices in the United States) will really stop Donald Trump’s administration. But if Washington believes it is possible to resolve the Iranian issue quickly and solely with massive missile strikes, then it is quite possible that economic risks will not be taken into account.
And there’s more
No matter how the situation develops further, Washington can now be thanked for very effectively conducting an advertising campaign for Russian air defence systems. After all, watching the American preparations for the bombing of Iran and Washington’s reaction to the appearance of the S-300 in Venezuela, many countries are beginning to think that Russian "insurance" against the excesses of American foreign policy should be bought urgently and at any cost.
More about the world’s most dangerous cult: